thinkprogress wrote: This Saturday, the American Psychiatric Association board of trustees approved the latest proposed revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, what will now be known as the DSM-V. This marks a historic milestone for people who are transgender and gender non-conforming, as their identities are no longer classified as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was similarly declassified as a mental disorder in 1973.
...
This is following a long struggle by many pushing the American Psychiatric Association to remove the classification of transgender people as mentally ill. The use of terms like "Gender Identify Disorder" basically painted trans people as mentally ill and allowed for discrimination against trans people adopting, getting jobs, and leading happy lives. There will still be standard set by the DSM-V for individuals to be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria for "a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.”
Personally, I'm glad this change is taking place. The assignment of a mental disorder to transgendered people marginalized them in courts allows them to be discriminated against legally in the US. I'm not sure how I feel about a diagnosis of some sort still existing, but I like the way it's worded-- as it is, it would allow for medical insurance to pay for gender reassignment surgery and other things that some people want when they transition. Ideally this would prevent discrimination against transgendered people and let them access the services they need as well.
I think this is a victory for America moving towards a more just society.
It seems a lot of this stuff was discussed and approved a couple years ago, and in six months when the new manual rolls it out will be official.
-As a note before any discussion on this topic, please keep the hate out.
There have been a lot of great posts in this thread, and if you don't have time to read the whole thread, please at least read these posts before contributing your thoughts.
packrat386 on being a gender:
On December 04 2012 12:53 packrat386 wrote: Well for starters is not a question of believing you should have been born another gender. Transgendered individuals already consider themselves to be the gender that they identify with, what they find traumatic is that their body does not match.
Assume that you are a guy, and one day you wake up, physically altered in that you appear to be female (enlarged breasts, higher voice, even female hormones and its all different down there). Would you still consider yourself a man? I think many men would since they still think like a man, and act like a man, and to them it would seem perfectly reasonable to even call themselves a man.
The problem is, the whole female body thing would get in the way of a lot of daily activities. You're going to get a lot of strange looks if, for instance, you try to use the mens room. There is also the issue that you would no find your own body unattractive (nay repulsive) and that would only make your life more difficult. That's gender dysphoria.
For any of this to make sense we have to start with the assumption that gender identity is independent from sex organs you are born with, but that has been backed up by a variety of psychological studies and is the primary accepted interpretation. So it isn't believe that you should have been born the other gender. You ARE one, and now you just want to look like it and have other people recognize that reality
shinosai on definition of terms, cissexual privilege, and gender:
On December 05 2012 05:53 shinosai wrote: Hi there. I myself identify as a trans person and I'd just like to clear up a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, some vocabulary:
Transgender: umbrella term for people who do not line up with the gender binary as it is usually conceived. Includes transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, transvestite, agender, etc.
Transsexual: Someone whose gender does not align with their sex.
Cissexual: Someone whose gender does align with their sex.
Ok, so that being said, one of the major problems in this thread is that there is a huge prevalence of cissexual privilege that most are not even aware they have. It's completely impossible to appeal to reason with you when you don't recognize your privilege, so hopefully, I can make you more aware. The examples in this thread so far (imagine if you were born a girl but still had the same mind) will not and cannot work, for the cissexual assumes that if he were born a girl, he would simply identify as a girl. Thus, a different sort of mindset is required.
Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
This is your cissexual privilege. You have never been questioned about your gender identity. You have never had to defend yourself as being who you really are. But one does not have to have a great deal of imagination to see how this could happen: Perhaps you got into a car accident, and it damaged your genitalia such that you no longer produced testosterone. And perhaps your vocal chords got damaged so you no longer have a deep voice. Indeed, people would question who you are. But you KNOW you're a guy, because you always have been. And no matter how much people treat you as female, do you really think they could someone socially mesmerize you into identifying as being female?
The other point I want to make is that there is a clear error in both gender constructionist and gender essentialist views, and neither are compatible with transsexualism. Gender constructionist says: There's no such thing as a "real" gender - we just made this stuff up. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a transsexual, because there's nothing innately female or male in the world, just stuff we made up. So there's no reason for you to want to change your body other than social norms.
Gender constructionists must ignore decades of research on intersexed individuals. Scientists thought with intersex, if you just remove one of the "defective"genitals, you could raise the child as if they were the sex (and gender) of your choice. Turns out, this was a fucking disaster. It was wrong. Intersexed individuals often end up discovering their condition and wish to revert to the other sex.
Gender essentialists, on the other hand - those that believe that we are "born" with genders - are equally wrong. We clearly have a wide variety of gender preferences and roles in society, from tomboyish women to effeminate men. And clearly to some degree these traits can be influenced by our upbringing. Female mannerisms such as occupying little space, having a weak handshake, walking in a particular way, wearing makeup, being "pretty" - are not necessary to being a woman. Nor is being a strong alpha male necessary to being a man.
It's high time we stopped pretending that gender is either completely constructed or essential to our biology. Gender and sexuality is fluid, it occupies far more than a mere binary. It's both constructed and biological, just like intelligence, work ethic, social skills, etc. We have innate tendencies that we tend to go towards, that can be enhanced or downplayed based on our in environments.
A final point, specifically to the people that say we must identify men and women based on their chromosomes or their genitalia: This completely ignores the fact that whether we are treated as a man or woman has absolutely nothing to do with these things. No one walks around with their birth certificates, and I am willing to bet that not a single fucking person in this thread has ever had their chromosomes examined (and if they did, they might get a surprising result, like xxy). Nor do we treat people as women or men based on their primary sexual characteristics (penis or vagina) at first glance. Rather, 99% of the reason we treat someone as a man or woman is based on an instantaneous evaluation of their secondary characteristics. To claim anything else is ad hoc reasoning applied after the fact.
Also, being transgender is not a mental disorder in my opinion because this implies that transsexuals need "therapy." The reality, though, is that the existence of the strict requirements for medications and surgeries to transition is more about protecting cissexual people that might be mistaken (perhaps .00000001% of the population) rather than helping people who actually are transsexual. That's why it's called a disorder - to protect cissexuals.
Befree on discrimination:
On December 06 2012 09:01 Befree wrote: There was a report in 2011 that went over a lot of the discrimination they face. I don't think most people are aware of how much they deal with so I really encourage everyone to look through the report summary. The study is based on 6,145 transgender and non-gender conforming participants from throughout the U.S. Here are some excerpts from the executive summary (source http://endtransdiscrimination.org/PDFs/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf ):
-A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
-Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
-Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
-Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
-Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or selling drugs).
-One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
-Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.
-Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, buses, airports and government agencies.
-Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
-Uninformed doctors: 50% of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
-Postponed care: Survey participants reported that when they were sick or injured, many postponed medical care due to discrimination (28%) or inability to afford it (48%).
-Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection.
The amount of discrimination is absolutely terrifying. But the saddest part of all this is how ignored it still is, and how so many still seem to think this discrimination is okay.
This was a big step, though. And hopefully we can start moving towards getting rid of institutional discrimination completely, which unfortunately still exists in laws in the United States for homosexuals and transgendered individuals.
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Keeping the hate out is ignoring an entire side of the topic lol.
No idea it was considered a mental order. Good that it's not anymore if it was causing that much trouble for them.
This really won't make me any more comfortable with them though. Being homosexual or bisexual is fine by me, but mutilating your body to be someone else just seems wrong. I suppose many would disagree though.
I think the entire modality by which the APA goes about applying negative diagnostic language like "disorder" is off point, but it seems that they are in the process of changing this, and the reclassification of transgenderism is definitely a step in the right direction, along with their adoption of more "spectrum" centric language. Typical clinical diagnostic jargon, while historically seemingly correct in its application to tangential fields, does not really suit a proper psychological/psychiatric diagnosis, especially when one takes into account recent advancements in psychology (and by recent I mean like within the past 40 years). Here's to moving forward.
Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Last I checked, this is a completely reasonable thought (yours, not the former). I'm not really sure what the argument is here. I'm not talking about the guys that put on a dress btw, I'm citing the argument above, whereby people deliberately alter themselves.
On December 04 2012 12:30 Calm wrote: Sorry, I'm an idiot. This is a good thing.
Yeah this was a concern I had as well. It seems like there's still a classification that would allow for medical coverage to help with transitions for those who want it, though we'll need to see if in practice that turns out to be the case. I suspect though this was explicitly written to allow medical coverage! :D
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
That's because you're not transgender and you have no idea what to feels like to be one. I'm very close with a transgender individual and he is not mentally unhealthy. He's smart and manly and if you didn't know he was born as a girl, you would never think twice about accepting him as a man.
I can't say I understand what it feels like really, but who am I to tell someone else how to be happy?
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
That's because you're not transgender and you have no idea what to feels like to be one. I'm very close with a transgender individual and he is not mentally unhealthy. He's smart and manly and if you didn't know he was born as a girl, you would never think twice about accepting him as a man.
I can't say I understand what it feels like really, but who am I to tell someone else how to be happy?
Good anecdote. I'm not against your disagreement, I'm against how your approach.
It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
On December 04 2012 12:34 Probe1 wrote: .. I'm glad that there's a thread and the word is getting around but this was announced in 2010.
The changes were announced in 2010, but they only just got approved now I think
They were "approved" in 2010. The blurb on CNN thinkprogress linked doesn't even directly address the removal of gender identity disorders. In fact all the article talks about is autism and it's bringing up changes that were announced over a year ago. I'm not really sure how any of this is new news. This is just the final approval after a year long field trial
Oh well, like I said it's news to most people I suppose! Edit: That'd be a bit nutty though wouldn't you think? Adding in brand new stuff six months before they publish? The APA isn't Blizzard. They only release patches once every decade or so. They can't afford to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On December 04 2012 12:12 Blazinghand wrote: but I like the way it's worded-- as it is, it would allow for medical insurance to pay for gender reassignment surgery
But... I'm not holding my breath on this :/
On December 04 2012 12:23 killa_robot wrote: Being homosexual or bisexual is fine by me, but mutilating your body to be someone else just seems wrong.
No no no. It's mutilating your body to be who you ARE.
Or, rather, mutilating your body to minimize a horrific form of depression. Either one works. And it's been shown in statistics to greatly reduce suicide rates among trans people (which is in the range of like 25%-50% already.)
Keep in mind too, not all trans people have surgery. Some are fine with their genitals and feel no dysphoria from them. Others it's a huge source of depression.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Last I checked, this is a completely reasonable thought (yours, not the former). I'm not really sure what the argument is here. I'm not talking about the guys that put on a dress btw, I'm citing the argument above, whereby people deliberately alter themselves.
No more unhealthy than people that get surgery to remove a brain tumor that's not immediately/directly life threatening, but causes severe headaches or other pains. To say it's on a whim is to discredit the existence of transsexuality and other forms of transgenderism--and they do exist, and they are very real. It's hard to empathize though, I suppose, if you cannot directly experience gender incongruity.
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
Because in many parts of the world, gender deviation of any sort is not only a taboo, but VERY HATED.
I mean, hell, last year trans women in DC were getting gunned down like crazy.
didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder is a completely meaningless term... All it has come to mean is "socially acceptable" or "socially unacceptable," which of course changes with time and society.
I'm afraid this thread is going to become a massive ban trap, since people are banned for even conflating sex and gender.
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm penis? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
It's generally not as accepted as homosexuality, even today. Just looking at the few posts in this thread is evidence enough, lots of people that are comfortable with gay people are still "weirded out" by trans people.
Anyway, it's good to hear, though I'm not sure what it'll actually mean. I'm not sure changing the DSM is going to change anybody's mind.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Well for starters is not a question of believing you should have been born another gender. Transgendered individuals already consider themselves to be the gender that they identify with, what they find traumatic is that their body does not match.
Assume that you are a guy, and one day you wake up, physically altered in that you appear to be female (enlarged breasts, higher voice, even female hormones and its all different down there). Would you still consider yourself a man? I think many men would since they still think like a man, and act like a man, and to them it would seem perfectly reasonable to even call themselves a man.
The problem is, the whole female body thing would get in the way of a lot of daily activities. You're going to get a lot of strange looks if, for instance, you try to use the mens room. There is also the issue that you would no find your own body unattractive (nay repulsive) and that would only make your life more difficult. That's gender dysphoria.
For any of this to make sense we have to start with the assumption that gender identity is independent from sex organs you are born with, but that has been backed up by a variety of psychological studies and is the primary accepted interpretation. So it isn't believe that you should have been born the other gender. You ARE one, and now you just want to look like it and have other people recognize that reality
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder doesn't mean to have strange thoughts/perspectives. That would make a lot of the tea-partiers candidate for mental examination. /scoff
Joke aside, it's about functioning in a society. People are weird. Most people function with their weirdness, few don't. Mental health is to help find a way for these folks to function in day to day society.
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder doesn't mean to have strange thoughts/perspectives. That would make a lot of the tea-partiers candidate for mental examination. /scoff
Joke aside, it's about functioning in a society. People are weird. Most people function with their weirdness, few don't. Mental health is to help find a way for these folks to function in day to day society.
People with mental disorders (ADD, depression, anxiety) are generally considered to be "disabled" in some way, i.e. they have an underlying clinical condition that makes it harder to them to function "normally" in society. Being trans doesn't qualify because there's nothing intrinsic about being transgendered that inhibits their ability to function; they encounter tons of obstacles in life, but most of them are because society isn't accepting of their condition.
Wanting to cut your own arm off has real and quantifiable effects on your ability to interact with society, and would thus qualify as a mental disorder (I'm sure there's something for self-harm)
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
I think it depends on who you ask. In the sociology class I'm in right now, the text says transgenderism (is that even a word?) is a disorder and cites the DSM
On December 04 2012 12:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: Mental disorder is a completely meaningless term... All it has come to mean is "socially acceptable" or "socially unacceptable," which of course changes with time and society.
I agree with you, but the fact that "mental disorder" carries a negative connotation (although scientific and psychological terms generally prioritize denotation) and that "transgender" is being removed from that list despite it technically being an example of "a psychological pattern or anomaly, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder), is a pretty interesting step towards making things more anti-prejudice (and politically correct) and possibly more ambiguous for psychologists.
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
That's more or less what I was about to post more or less. GID is no longer a disorder, Gender Dysphoria is. The difference being the general cure for Gender Dysphoria is Hormone treatments and Transitioning, whereas GID was not.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Well for starters is not a question of believing you should have been born another gender. Transgendered individuals already consider themselves to be the gender that they identify with, what they find traumatic is that their body does not match.
Assume that you are a guy, and one day you wake up, physically altered in that you appear to be female (enlarged breasts, higher voice, even female hormones and its all different down there). Would you still consider yourself a man? I think many men would since they still think like a man, and act like a man, and to them it would seem perfectly reasonable to even call themselves a man.
The problem is, the whole female body thing would get in the way of a lot of daily activities. You're going to get a lot of strange looks if, for instance, you try to use the mens room. There is also the issue that you would no find your own body unattractive (nay repulsive) and that would only make your life more difficult. That's gender dysphoria.
For any of this to make sense we have to start with the assumption that gender identity is independent from sex organs you are born with, but that has been backed up by a variety of psychological studies and is the primary accepted interpretation. So it isn't believe that you should have been born the other gender. You ARE one, and now you just want to look like it and have other people recognize that reality
This is a good outline of gender dysphoria. Thanks for writing up.
There's an short bit of a clip on sexuality also describing some of the neurobiology of transsexuality:
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
That's more or less what I was about to post more or less. GID is no longer a disorder, Gender Dysphoria is. The difference being the general cure for Gender Dysphoria is Hormone treatments and Transitioning, whereas GID was not.
Also, YES, this is what it's getting at. The gender identity of the individual isn't the disorder--and they're never treating that. The depression, social anxiety, and psychological strain from having gender/body incongruity is what is the disorder.
On December 04 2012 12:46 Digitalis wrote: didnt even know it was considered one. idk why it would still be considered one if homosexuality was declassified as one in 1973, why did transgender take forever? i guess because it gets less press than 'gay'
It's generally not as accepted as homosexuality, even today. Just looking at the few posts in this thread is evidence enough, lots of people that are comfortable with gay people are still "weirded out" by trans people.
Anyway, it's good to hear, though I'm not sure what it'll actually mean. I'm not sure changing the DSM is going to change anybody's mind.
I am in this camp. It is nothing personal and I do not think that transgender should be considered a mental health issue, or that transgender people should face any discrimination. I simply do not understand transgender because I cannot relate to it. I can relate to homosexuality because everyone finds different things attractive, regardless of gender.
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder doesn't mean to have strange thoughts/perspectives. That would make a lot of the tea-partiers candidate for mental examination. /scoff
Joke aside, it's about functioning in a society. People are weird. Most people function with their weirdness, few don't. Mental health is to help find a way for these folks to function in day to day society.
People with mental disorders (ADD, depression, anxiety) are generally considered to be "disabled" in some way, i.e. they have an underlying clinical condition that makes it harder to them to function "normally" in society. Being trans doesn't qualify because there's nothing intrinsic about being transgendered that inhibits their ability to function; they encounter tons of obstacles in life, but most of them are because society isn't accepting of their condition.
Wanting to cut your own arm off has real and quantifiable effects on your ability to interact with society, and would thus qualify as a mental disorder (I'm sure there's something for self-harm)
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
I think it depends on who you ask. In the sociology class I'm in right now, the text says transgenderism (is that even a word?) is a disorder and cites the DSM
So, wanting to cut off an arm would have real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society? By that token, what about people who didn't want to lose their arm but did through war or something? I mean, the loss has real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society, right?
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder doesn't mean to have strange thoughts/perspectives. That would make a lot of the tea-partiers candidate for mental examination. /scoff
Joke aside, it's about functioning in a society. People are weird. Most people function with their weirdness, few don't. Mental health is to help find a way for these folks to function in day to day society.
People with mental disorders (ADD, depression, anxiety) are generally considered to be "disabled" in some way, i.e. they have an underlying clinical condition that makes it harder to them to function "normally" in society. Being trans doesn't qualify because there's nothing intrinsic about being transgendered that inhibits their ability to function; they encounter tons of obstacles in life, but most of them are because society isn't accepting of their condition.
Wanting to cut your own arm off has real and quantifiable effects on your ability to interact with society, and would thus qualify as a mental disorder (I'm sure there's something for self-harm)
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
I think it depends on who you ask. In the sociology class I'm in right now, the text says transgenderism (is that even a word?) is a disorder and cites the DSM
So, wanting to cut off an arm would have real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society? By that token, what about people who didn't want to lose their arm but did through war or something? I mean, the loss has real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society, right?
Yeah, and we call those people handicapped or disabled (I forget which is the PC term). I'm no psychiatrist, but in my understanding, a mental disorder is something going on in your brain that limits your functioning. Being trans doesn't qualify, wanting to disable yourself does.
I'm curious what type of issues was this classification causing for them? Specific examples please. I haven't heard of people being discriminated against solely based on being able to classify them with this disorder (or past disorder I guess). People may discriminate based off of their own beliefs, but in what instances were they being discriminated against legally? Just curious for actual examples.
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
Wanting to remove a perfectly healthy arm? Your example sounds like a mental disorder to me.
Mental disorder doesn't mean to have strange thoughts/perspectives. That would make a lot of the tea-partiers candidate for mental examination. /scoff
Joke aside, it's about functioning in a society. People are weird. Most people function with their weirdness, few don't. Mental health is to help find a way for these folks to function in day to day society.
People with mental disorders (ADD, depression, anxiety) are generally considered to be "disabled" in some way, i.e. they have an underlying clinical condition that makes it harder to them to function "normally" in society. Being trans doesn't qualify because there's nothing intrinsic about being transgendered that inhibits their ability to function; they encounter tons of obstacles in life, but most of them are because society isn't accepting of their condition.
Wanting to cut your own arm off has real and quantifiable effects on your ability to interact with society, and would thus qualify as a mental disorder (I'm sure there's something for self-harm)
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder in practice for almost a decade. I remember discussions in my first year psych classes in 2005 using gender identity disorder as a prime example of why the DSM isn't the only reference book you should consult. I obviously can't speak for anywhere outside of my own experience but in my lifetime I've never seen someone actually type gender identity and reassignment as a disorder.
I think it depends on who you ask. In the sociology class I'm in right now, the text says transgenderism (is that even a word?) is a disorder and cites the DSM
So, wanting to cut off an arm would have real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society? By that token, what about people who didn't want to lose their arm but did through war or something? I mean, the loss has real and quantifiable effects on one's ability to interact with society, right?
Yeah, and we call those people handicapped or disabled (I forget which is the PC term). I'm no psychiatrist, but in my understanding, a mental disorder is something going on in your brain that limits your functioning. Being trans doesn't qualify, wanting to disable yourself does.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
On December 04 2012 13:13 ClanRH.TV wrote: I'm curious what type of issues was this classification causing for them? Specific examples please. I haven't heard of people being discriminated against solely based on being able to classify them with this disorder (or past disorder I guess). People may discriminate based off of their own beliefs, but in what instances were they being discriminated against legally? Just curious for actual examples.
Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
As the OP said, the best to hope for is better insurance coverage, since Genital Reassignment Surgery for many individuals is arguably necessary, and yet still costs a good 20k+
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Haven't there been studies that show the sexually dimorphic brain structures of transgender individuals more closely resemble that of their preferred sex rather than their birth sex? I don't think its so much about "making themselves happy" in the conventional sense (i.e. "I want to get rich so I can be happy" or "Getting a new shirt (or new genetalia) would make me happy") but rather a basic incongruence in their self-identification. Dunno just my thoughts. Your comment seems rather callous I guess.
On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote: LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^
I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
On December 04 2012 13:21 Alay wrote:Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
The massive irony behind their bigotry is that this allows homosexual transsexuals to marry but not heterosexual ones.
On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals.
Haven't there been studies that show the sexually dimorphic brain structures of transgender individuals more closely resemble that of their preferred sex rather than their birth sex? I don't think its so much about "making themselves happy" in the conventional sense (i.e. "I want to get rich so I can be happy" or "Getting a new shirt (or new genetalia) would make me happy") but rather a basic incongruence in their self-identification. Dunno just my thoughts. Your comment seems rather callous I guess.
On December 04 2012 13:21 Alay wrote:Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
The massive irony behind their bigotry is that this allows homosexual transsexuals to marry but not heterosexual ones.
You'd think so, but they usually ban those too on an "appears gay" clause.
So yeah, in some cases (Ohio, as far as I'm aware, still being one) trans people can't get married. Period.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
In a way, it makes sense for a transgendered person to not be classified as having a mental disorder.
You could either look at it as the brain not fitting the body, in which case it is a disorder, or you can look at it as the body not fitting the brain, in which case its the body which has the "disorder".
I suppose, since ultimately there's nothing wrong with the brain other than that it identifies as a different gender, disorder may be too strong of a term to apply in this situation. Although it does cause great psychological distress to see yourself in the wrong type of body, in a sense that's a normal, healthy reaction for a female brain to have if it were in a male body (or vice versa).
And it makes more sense to say the brain has the priority over the body (because its more important), so if you could go either way, saying that the brain is in the right is the sensible way to go.
So I guess this is a good decision. Good topic to think about, for a moment there I thought disorder had no real meaning. But now that I think about it, I'm glad that the change is actually justified, and that transgendered people genuinely can be seen to not have a mental disorder, rather than just eliminating the classification due to social/political pressures.
On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote: LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^
I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
You are new, so I will clue you in. People aren't allowed to be misinformed here, or as it is called, "willfully ignorant."
On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote: LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^
I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
Oh, don't worry. They really only ban the bigoted d-bags. Threads like this are partly why I changed my mind on this issue.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote: LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^
I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
Oh, don't worry. They really only ban the bigoted d-bags. Threads like this are partly why I changed my mind on this issue.
Thats good to know. The only reason I can claim to know anything about this is because at one time I turned to the internet for information, and I'm glad that some people put up with my (probably offensive at the time) beliefs in order to explain it to me.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
You switched some words around, but it still seems like a viable reason to cut off both arms, if that were the case...
What exactly is the point you were trying to make?
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
I don't know of a treatment for depression that would involve removing your arm, but that was sort of my point above. If you want to cut off your arm because the alternative is worse, then that is not a disorder. In the case of gender dysphoria, the problem is that transgendered people feel extremely uncomfortable with their bodies, and there are various treatments (of which surgery is only one I might add) to remedy that. What this change does is recognize that the gender identity of the individual does NOT represent a disorder.
To clarify if you are a transwoman (born with a Y chromosome, but identify as a woman) then the disorder is the depression etc. that comes from the incongruence between your gender identity and your body. And similarly, the fact that your gender identity is different from your biological sex is NOT a disorder.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse.
I know a lot of people are responding to this persons post as if he or she is simply trolling, but I don't think thats all that productive. If s/he is trolling then those comments only tend to encourage them. If s/he isn't trolling then it's important to try explain these issues clearly.
On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote: If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name.
Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be.
And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes.
I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder.
Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction?
Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse.
I know a lot of people are responding to this persons post as if he or she is simply trolling, but I don't think thats all that productive. If s/he is trolling then those comments only tend to encourage them. If s/he isn't trolling then it's important to try explain these issues clearly.
I was trying to reply to him like he wasn't trolling and was genuinely confused, but I gave up after that, I think he's just being a tool.
To be on topic, does anyone with more expertise in the field know what effect this would have on insurance companies and such? I know that in most places, reassignment surgery isn't covered, but it seems like the APA is recommending that GRS be covered.
While I'm sympathetic to the gains made for equality, I am simply not sure that the grounds for this maneuver - which has led to those gains - are truthful. Though, I have to say - I am additionally discouraged to even discuss the matter, as I can see that at least one moderator is already going trigger happy on people who 'dare' to give voice to such thinking. Some equality in while some equality stays out.
Sorta old news in a sense but yeah it's definitely not a mental disorder. Your mind is perfectly fine as a transgender. It's the body that isn't fine. Transgenders are not hindered mentally nor are they wrong. They are whatever gender they identify themselves with, I mean I sure as hell don't look at my body and go "That's me", I look at my personality and my interests. I look at what I identify myself with. I'm lucky in the sense that my mind matches my body. Trans aren't lucky, and aren't mentally disabled.
After all the body isn't who you are, it's the mind that determines it.
As a mentally ill person, I'm okay with this. More attention on me and my disorders.
Oh, and protip: If you want to know how to deal with a transgendered person, the answer is: Like a person. No special positive treatments, no special negative treatments. Exactly the same way you did before it was even hinted they are transgendered.
If anyone is curious why, it's touchy, it's simple. There are those who cannot understand how other people can't think like them, and thus assume that everything that doesn't make sense to them must be wrong and act as such. This tends to lead to extremly banal hostilities and positions.
Question: What is the difference between believing that you are a man born is a woman's body and, what people have been arguing, that the person IS is man in a woman's body? Can you even differentiate between the two?
On December 04 2012 14:48 Proxie wrote: Question: What is the difference between believing that you are a man born is a woman's body and, what people have been arguing, that the person IS is man in a woman's body? Can you even differentiate between the two?
Those 2 things really are the same thing (gender identity). Earlier there was a discussion about the difference between someone thinking they should have been born as a different gender, and someones gender not matching one that was assigned at birth. An important distinction in that case is that its not a question of what they should be its what they are. So its not that transgendered individuals want to change their gender, the want to change their body to match what their gender already is.
the issue is not about mental health, but that it does not affect your work/school/family in a significant negative manner
everyone here is mentally unhealthy to varying degrees, but as long as it doesn't cause you to fail school, get fired, or be violent toward family members it isn't a disorder.
I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
On December 04 2012 14:40 Fuzzmosis wrote: If anyone is curious why, it's touchy, it's simple. There are those who cannot understand how other people can't think like them, and thus assume that everything that doesn't make sense to them must be wrong and act as such. This tends to lead to extremly banal hostilities and positions.
I think this part is wrongheaded.
I find that the reason why it's "touchy" is that the people who are on the "other side" don't accept that it's real. They don't buy into the idea that gender dysphoria exists as a concept. To them, they simply see it as someone deciding, perhaps on a lark, perhaps after some introspection, to alter their bodies and lifestyles.
If it's something that is not under a person's control, then refusing to accept them for something they had no control over is rather assholish. But if it's someone's choice, then by making that choice, they open themselves and their choices up to ridicule.
This is also why it's not OK to pick on people of <insert race here>, while it is (relatively) OK to pick on fat people. Because being fat is their choice; by making that choice, they also choose to accept the consequences of being potentially picked on.
People are judged by the choices they make. Thus, because the "other side" doesn't see this as something innate but as a choice, they are perfectly fine being dicks to these people for making that choice.
On December 04 2012 14:48 Proxie wrote: Question: What is the difference between believing that you are a man born is a woman's body and, what people have been arguing, that the person IS is man in a woman's body? Can you even differentiate between the two?
Those 2 things really are the same thing (gender identity). Earlier there was a discussion about the difference between someone thinking they should have been born as a different gender, and someones gender not matching one that was assigned at birth. An important distinction in that case is that its not a question of what they should be its what they are. So its not that transgendered individuals want to change their gender, the want to change their body to match what their gender already is.
I think the point he's trying to get at is the difference between what someone wants and what someone actually is. That is, if they do have gender dysphoria, is there something besides what they say that can be used to diagnose it. It's a question of "hard" science vs. "soft" science.
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
All of the supposedly transgendered individuals that you list as examples why you aren't opposed to them aren't transgendered. Those people are cross dressers. While Boy George may wear womens clothes and act feminine he still considers himself a man, and this is apparent in the way that he interacts in society (male pronouns etc).
This may be contributing toward your confusion. There is a difference between gender roles and gender just like there is a difference between being feminine and being female. As a guy I can say that I am feminine or effeminate if I act in a matter that is considered to be identified with femininity. But I cannot say that I am female, because I don't identify as such. Transgendered individuals don't want to act like the other gender, they are the other gender and their issue comes from.
A: wanting their body to match that gender and B: wanting to be perceived as such in society
I can identify as male all I want, but if I have large breasts and walk into a male restroom I will probably get asked to leave at best, and at worst could be subject to transphobic violence. Its also generally hard to act in society as a member of the gender you identify as when other people don't recognize that gender. That is why some transgendered individuals choose surgery or other ways of "transitioning" into their true gender.
It should also be noted that not all of them hate their bodies and not all of them choose surgery. Some are content simply with hormone therapy. Some are happy just to be themselves and have no problem bein mistaken for the opposite gender. But not everyone is ok with that, and so it seems to be reasonable to allow them to change themselves to make their daily lives easier
On December 04 2012 14:48 Proxie wrote: Question: What is the difference between believing that you are a man born is a woman's body and, what people have been arguing, that the person IS is man in a woman's body? Can you even differentiate between the two?
Those 2 things really are the same thing (gender identity). Earlier there was a discussion about the difference between someone thinking they should have been born as a different gender, and someones gender not matching one that was assigned at birth. An important distinction in that case is that its not a question of what they should be its what they are. So its not that transgendered individuals want to change their gender, the want to change their body to match what their gender already is.
I think the point he's trying to get at is the difference between what someone wants and what someone actually is. That is, if they do have gender dysphoria, is there something besides what they say that can be used to diagnose it. It's a question of "hard" science vs. "soft" science.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be difficult to have some "hard" evidence to prove that someone is or isn't transgendered, but I think that few people would choose to switch and live as a gender that they don't identify with. No amount of hormone therapy or surgery would change someones gender identity, so those kinds of treatments would help someone who "wants to be the other gender"
EDIT: sorry it appears that I have quoted myself instead of the person I was intending to answer. I don't really know how to fix this but if this is intended to be in answer to the post above by NicolBolas
Strange subject for me. I've never met a transgender as far as I know. It's an issue my mind literally cannot comprehend. I'm admittedly ignorant on it. I grew up with my cousin who was open about being gay very early in life. I never felt he was mentally ill or really even different from me besides our differences in sexual orientation. However when it comes to transgender I just don't see how it is not in fact a mental illness. Maybe that's just because I'm ignorant to it and can't relate in the slightest bit but I don't really see how it wouldn't be considered a mental illness. That's not to say such a person should be treated badly or different.
I've also heard people say it's not wrong for a transgender to not disclose their "previous sex" before a relationship or what have you. That's just not something I could ever agree with. I would be disturbed to be in such a situation.
What does a gender reassignment cost a person these days, on average? Since it's no longer a "disorder", how does that affect the price or availability? Is this a step forward, or what?
EDIT: I'm not too sure how well-versed the public at large is about the APA's classifications on anything. Until these things touch their lives, you'd think they would continue to live in blissful ignorance and form their own opinions about how they feel about transgender.
On December 04 2012 15:26 heliusx wrote: Strange subject for me. I've never met a transgender as far as I know. It's an issue my mind literally cannot comprehend. I'm admittedly ignorant on it. I grew up with my cousin who was open about being gay very early in life. I never felt he was mentally ill or really even different from me besides our differences in sexual orientation. However when it comes to transgender I just don't see how it is not in fact a mental illness. Maybe that's just because I'm ignorant to it and can't relate in the slightest bit but I don't really see how it wouldn't be considered a mental illness. That's not to say such a person should be treated badly or different.
If you don't really understand it how can you be so quick to decide that it must be a mental illness .If we consider that gender identity and biological sex (XY vs XX) are independent then it is not hard to imagine a case where the 2 might not match up. The question is, if your gender identity doesn't match your biological sex, could we consider it a disorder of the brain (i.e. ideally you must agree with you biological sex and treatment should focus on changing your gender identity) or should we consider it to be an issue with the body (i.e. we should accept the patients gender identity as is and focus on helping them comfortably participate in society as that gender). Past efforts to change the gender identity of those diagnosed with GID have essentially failed, and only lead to them suppressing their true identity, which is traumatic. Thus I think it is prudent that we focus on accepting the identified gender of transgendered individuals, and help them overcome social barriers to engaging in society as that gender.
Also not that I think you want to discriminate against transgendered individuals, but classifying them a mentally unstable makes it very easy to do so.
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
Dunno how 'reliable/objective' of a third party I can be as a trans person, but the closest approximation to the feeling I can think of is just absolute self-loathing and disgust, an internal feeling of everything being wrong. It's not really about being insecure with the body in a traditional sense (hell, post-transition, I'm hardly great-looking, and just like any other person I have hangup--nose looks a bit big, hips are too flat, etc etc bullshit stuff) but an innate sense of incongruity. Again, I've felt both gender dysphoria, and typical hangups, and they are completely different in feeling.
The surgery deal seems to be the biggest hangup for people that aren't trans--I guess rightfully so. The genitals are the core of their existence in many ways from a biological standpoint, and the rationale to be willing to void them seems beyond contemplation, but that in my opinion merely speaks to the severity of the inner discontent. But not all trans people have genital dysphoria. Some simply feel indifferent, transition but stay non-operative. Some do it simply for legal benefits--gender marker changes on licenses/birth certificates/marriage licenses/etc. I'm sure some do it for their partners mostly as well. It's a really tricky and dynamic thing, but in a lot of cases it's simply because it's a source of extreme depression. To use a personal anecdote, in day to day life I'm not even reminded that I'm trans, then at the end of the day I step into the shower and, hell, it's almost like I forgot--oh, yeah, THAT.
To clarify though, part of it is still considered a disorder--the Gender Dysphoria. They just removed the Gender Identity Disorder--which roughly equated to a roundabout way of saying the persons gender is their disorder. Now, the gender dysphoria is the disorder, same as someone with chronic depression, the depression itself is the disorder.
On December 04 2012 15:11 NicolBolas wrote:
I think this part is wrongheaded.
I find that the reason why it's "touchy" is that the people who are on the "other side" don't accept that it's real. They don't buy into the idea that gender dysphoria exists as a concept. To them, they simply see it as someone deciding, perhaps on a lark, perhaps after some introspection, to alter their bodies and lifestyles.
If it's something that is not under a person's control, then refusing to accept them for something they had no control over is rather assholish. But if it's someone's choice, then by making that choice, they open themselves and their choices up to ridicule.
This is also why it's not OK to pick on people of <insert race here>, while it is (relatively) OK to pick on fat people. Because being fat is their choice; by making that choice, they also choose to accept the consequences of being potentially picked on.
People are judged by the choices they make. Thus, because the "other side" doesn't see this as something innate but as a choice, they are perfectly fine being dicks to these people for making that choice.
This is a pretty good explanation of one of the fundamental issues with many discussions on transsexuality. Because it is not directly observational outside of individuals expressions and actions, it is construed by some to be voluntary.
I highly doubt anyone would choose to be trans, heh.
On December 04 2012 15:11 NicolBolas wrote: I think the point he's trying to get at is the difference between what someone wants and what someone actually is. That is, if they do have gender dysphoria, is there something besides what they say that can be used to diagnose it. It's a question of "hard" science vs. "soft" science.
The only 'hard' science evidence is sections of the brain that have been shown to use different transmitters in males and females--and trans people have been shown on cadivers to have the transmitter matched with their gender identity. Sample sizes were small though, and it's not exactly thoroughly checked yet. It's a start though. It seems like there's not a lot of science done on transsexuality from a biological standpoint.
On December 04 2012 15:15 packrat386 wrote: All of the supposedly transgendered individuals that you list as examples why you aren't opposed to them aren't transgendered. Those people are cross dressers.
Keep in mind transgender is an umbrella term used mainly as a 'catch-all' to describe gender non-conforming, and includes Transsexuals, BiGender individuals, gender fluid individuals, cross-dressers, drag performers, and a few other groups.
If you're describing individuals that directly were assigned a sex at birth opposite (in a binary-gender sense) to their gender identity, then they are indeed transsexual.
On December 04 2012 15:31 dUTtrOACh wrote: What does a gender reassignment cost a person these days, on average? Since it's no longer a "disorder", how does that affect the price or availability? Is this a step forward, or what?
EDIT: I'm not too sure how well-versed the public at large is about the APA's classifications on anything. Until these things touch their lives, you'd think they would continue to live in blissful ignorance and form their own opinions about how they feel about transgender.
20k+/- depending on the surgeon.
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
On December 04 2012 15:15 packrat386 wrote: All of the supposedly transgendered individuals that you list as examples why you aren't opposed to them aren't transgendered. Those people are cross dressers.
Keep in mind transgender is an umbrella term used mainly as a 'catch-all' to describe gender non-conforming, and includes Transsexuals, BiGender individuals, gender fluid individuals, cross-dressers, drag performers, and a few other groups.
If you're describing individuals that directly were assigned a sex at birth opposite (in a binary-gender sense) to their gender identity, then they are indeed transsexual..
Sorry I have confused my terminology. What I meant to say is that those people still do identify with the gender that they were assigned at birth, whereas people that would have been diagnosed with GID identify with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. This distinction should be highlighted though. Transgenderism as a spectrum is generally not well understood or explained many people, and is evinced by the fact almost all of the discussion in this thread is really about a particular subset of transgendered individuals (those who identintify with a gender that they were not assigned at birth and choose to undergo surgery as a result).
On December 04 2012 15:26 heliusx wrote: Strange subject for me. I've never met a transgender as far as I know. It's an issue my mind literally cannot comprehend. I'm admittedly ignorant on it. I grew up with my cousin who was open about being gay very early in life. I never felt he was mentally ill or really even different from me besides our differences in sexual orientation. However when it comes to transgender I just don't see how it is not in fact a mental illness. Maybe that's just because I'm ignorant to it and can't relate in the slightest bit but I don't really see how it wouldn't be considered a mental illness. That's not to say such a person should be treated badly or different.
If you don't really understand it how can you be so quick to decide that it must be a mental illness .If we consider that gender identity and biological sex (XY vs XX) are independent then it is not hard to imagine a case where the 2 might not match up. The question is, if your gender identity doesn't match your biological sex, could we consider it a disorder of the brain (i.e. ideally you must agree with you biological sex and treatment should focus on changing your gender identity) or should we consider it to be an issue with the body (i.e. we should accept the patients gender identity as is and focus on helping them comfortably participate in society as that gender). Past efforts to change the gender identity of those diagnosed with GID have essentially failed, and only lead to them suppressing their true identity, which is traumatic. Thus I think it is prudent that we focus on accepting the identified gender of transgendered individuals, and help them overcome social barriers to engaging in society as that gender.
Also not that I think you want to discriminate against transgendered individuals, but classifying them a mentally unstable makes it very easy to do so.
yeah, mentally ill is probably not the correct word to use. I don't really know what transgender is or how it can happen besides the obvious. I don't think they are crazy people who are mentally unstable. Maybe this thread will let me understand a little bit.
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
I'll give it from my side.
I don't exactly have issues with how I look other than I look male. I know I am an attractive/cute male. I get complimented about it all the time. But that's not me. I identify as a female, and feel that my body should have been female to match as well. The options to correct it are rather simple honestly. I'll take some anti-androgens to stop the testosterone from further masculinizin' me and I'll take estradial to put estrogen in my system. This will give me softer skin, less muscle mass, and breasts so I will appear outwardly, as a cisfemale (someone who was born female and does not identify under the trans umbrella). As far as surgery goes, I will not opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) because I don't have cosmetic issues with myself, sure my chin could probably use it and so could my forehead, but I'll look female without it and I'm not vain enough to care. As far as SRS/GRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery/Genital Reassignment Surgery) goes, I do plan to get this. I guess you could call it a cosmetic reason, because I don't want to be walkin' around in tight women's clothes with a bulge in my pants that makes onlookers skeptical. It also feels very foreign to me when my male bits are bein' active (whether masturbatin' or durin' sexual penetration). Now I plan to pay for that on my own, but that's my choice. For some people, they really can't stand their male parts and have gone to drastic lengths (I've had a few episodes where I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
Depends on the company, the country and the surgeon. And that's the price for male to female. If I remember correctly, female to male surgery starts around $70k and only jumps up?
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
All of the supposedly transgendered individuals that you list as examples why you aren't opposed to them aren't transgendered. Those people are cross dressers. While Boy George may wear womens clothes and act feminine he still considers himself a man, and this is apparent in the way that he interacts in society (male pronouns etc).
This may be contributing toward your confusion. There is a difference between gender roles and gender just like there is a difference between being feminine and being female. As a guy I can say that I am feminine or effeminate if I act in a matter that is considered to be identified with femininity. But I cannot say that I am female, because I don't identify as such. Transgendered individuals don't want to act like the other gender, they are the other gender and their issue comes from.
A: wanting their body to match that gender and B: wanting to be perceived as such in society
I can identify as male all I want, but if I have large breasts and walk into a male restroom I will probably get asked to leave at best, and at worst could be subject to transphobic violence. Its also generally hard to act in society as a member of the gender you identify as when other people don't recognize that gender. That is why some transgendered individuals choose surgery or other ways of "transitioning" into their true gender.
It should also be noted that not all of them hate their bodies and not all of them choose surgery. Some are content simply with hormone therapy. Some are happy just to be themselves and have no problem bein mistaken for the opposite gender. But not everyone is ok with that, and so it seems to be reasonable to allow them to change themselves to make their daily lives easier
TBH it's fairly acceptable for a woman to use the mens room (most guys don't care), the opposite isn't true though.
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
I'll give it from my side.
I don't exactly have issues with how I look other than I look male. I know I am an attractive/cute male. I get complimented about it all the time. But that's not me. I identify as a female, and feel that my body should have been female to match as well. The options to correct it are rather simple honestly. I'll take some anti-androgens to stop the testosterone from further masculinizin' me and I'll take estradial to put estrogen in my system. This will give me softer skin, less muscle mass, and breasts so I will appear outwardly, as a cisfemale (someone who was born female and does not identify under the trans umbrella). As far as surgery goes, I will not opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) because I don't have cosmetic issues with myself, sure my chin could probably use it and so could my forehead, but I'll look female without it and I'm not vain enough to care. As far as SRS/GRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery/Genital Reassignment Surgery) goes, I do plan to get this. I guess you could call it a cosmetic reason, because I don't want to be walkin' around in tight women's clothes with a bulge in my pants that makes onlookers skeptical. It also feels very foreign to me when my male bits are bein' active (whether masturbatin' or durin' sexual penetration). Now I plan to pay for that on my own, but that's my choice. For some people, they really can't stand their male parts and have gone to drastic lengths (I've had a few episodes where I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
Depends on the company, the country and the surgeon. And that's the price for male to female. If I remember correctly, female to male surgery starts around $70k and only jumps up?
Thanks so much for sharing your side of the story. Research can only go so far in understanding these things and I think this thread is generally lacking first hand experience. Its hard to continue believing something when you're talking to the counter-example .
I think it's pretty clearly a mental "issue". It's not necessarily a negative thing but it is a product of your mind. I don't know enough about the DSM to say whether or not it should be included but imo it should. Someone who is distressed by something occurring in their mind that they cannot help imo is suffering from a mental disorder.
On December 04 2012 13:50 DigiGnar wrote: I'm trying to say that wanting your arms off and wanting to have your dick inverted are both treatment options for massive depression.
No they are not, one is actually happening, second one is you being obtuse. None got treated out of depression by cutting arms off. It is like saying that no matter what pills you eat they will cure you, well if you eat poison pills (cutting your arms off) , they won't , if you actually eat the prescribed ones (reassignment surgery) you will get better.
On December 04 2012 15:31 dUTtrOACh wrote: What does a gender reassignment cost a person these days, on average? Since it's no longer a "disorder", how does that affect the price or availability? Is this a step forward, or what?
EDIT: I'm not too sure how well-versed the public at large is about the APA's classifications on anything. Until these things touch their lives, you'd think they would continue to live in blissful ignorance and form their own opinions about how they feel about transgender.
In a lot of countries it is covered by national healthcare.
On December 04 2012 13:50 DigiGnar wrote: I'm trying to say that wanting your arms off and wanting to have your dick inverted are both treatment options for massive depression.
No they are not, one is actually happening, second one is you being obtuse. None got treated out of depression by cutting arms off. It is like saying that no matter what pills you eat they will cure you, well if you eat poison pills (cutting your arms off) , they won't , if you actually eat the prescribed ones (reassignment surgery) you will get better.
Are you saying there isn't a thing such as "Body Integrity Identity Disorder?"
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
I'll give it from my side.
I don't exactly have issues with how I look other than I look male. I know I am an attractive/cute male. I get complimented about it all the time. But that's not me. I identify as a female, and feel that my body should have been female to match as well. The options to correct it are rather simple honestly. I'll take some anti-androgens to stop the testosterone from further masculinizin' me and I'll take estradial to put estrogen in my system. This will give me softer skin, less muscle mass, and breasts so I will appear outwardly, as a cisfemale (someone who was born female and does not identify under the trans umbrella). As far as surgery goes, I will not opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) because I don't have cosmetic issues with myself, sure my chin could probably use it and so could my forehead, but I'll look female without it and I'm not vain enough to care. As far as SRS/GRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery/Genital Reassignment Surgery) goes, I do plan to get this. I guess you could call it a cosmetic reason, because I don't want to be walkin' around in tight women's clothes with a bulge in my pants that makes onlookers skeptical. It also feels very foreign to me when my male bits are bein' active (whether masturbatin' or durin' sexual penetration). Now I plan to pay for that on my own, but that's my choice. For some people, they really can't stand their male parts and have gone to drastic lengths (I've had a few episodes where I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
Depends on the company, the country and the surgeon. And that's the price for male to female. If I remember correctly, female to male surgery starts around $70k and only jumps up?
Thanks for sharing, that takes a lot of courage (I know it's anonymous internet whatever, but still). Posts like this are the slow chisel that chips away at the ugly monolith of bigotry... you're humanizing the issue in a way that the people on the fence can't ignore. <3
One of the biggest problems surrounding transgenderism and transsexuality (they are slightly different things, often lumped together) is that they are not easily understood by the general populace, and there's not a whole lot of incentive to learn about them because... well, they're different. Especially on the internet, where that sort of behavior is streamlined. According to studies, people spend something like two whole seconds on a webpage or thread or whatever that they're not interested in. Why would you read about something that you don't understand when you can watch streams or look at pictures of puppies instead?
The APA removing transgenderism from the DSM is a step in a wonderful direction. Hopefully this raises awareness and gets people eager to read literature about it, or understand it in general.
On December 04 2012 16:08 tokicheese wrote: I think it's pretty clearly a mental "issue". It's not necessarily a negative thing but it is a product of your mind. I don't know enough about the DSM to say whether or not it should be included but imo it should. Someone who is distressed by something occurring in their mind that they cannot help imo is suffering from a mental disorder.
As has been said other times in this thread, what's happening in the mind of a transgendered individual isn't what's distressing them. They identify with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth, and they are generally pretty comfortable with that (at least after they have had some time to get use to it). What they aren't comfortable with is their body. The fact that it is incongruent with their identified gender makes it hard for the to function in society as a person of that gender. It may also disgust them or generally make them depressed (very few women think they look attractive with a penis and vice versa). So the issue is that something has gone wrong in their mind, its that their body and presentation in society is making their life as their identified gender difficult.
On December 04 2012 16:08 tokicheese wrote: I think it's pretty clearly a mental "issue". It's not necessarily a negative thing but it is a product of your mind. I don't know enough about the DSM to say whether or not it should be included but imo it should. Someone who is distressed by something occurring in their mind that they cannot help imo is suffering from a mental disorder.
But is that a practical approach? Research has afaik proven that there are indeed m/f brains, so the biological sex of the brain might indeed differ from the rest of the body. I would rate brain alignment above DNA.
You also have to consider the state of a TS-person. It often takes many years to come to terms with one's own 'condition'. Guilt can be a huge factor (how can I be doing sth. like this to my friends/family/partner?). GID usually leads to outright war within the soul as long as it is not treated properly, and therapy without hormones just does not help. It is very hard to accept yourself under those circumstances, it can take years and comes in wake of depression and heavy physical reactions (insomnia, inability to eat properly, even limitation of one's ability to speak). If the point is reached where it starts to get better again it is very cruel to 'attack' the mind of the patient I think. After fighting so many battles and suffering so much, a sense of self (-acceptance) and hope is finally acquired, just to be put to the test immediately by society. Being classified as mentally ill can be hard, especially if you are not. I mean imagine you have finally uncovered your true self fully ( and being m or f is probably the most central point of 'self' ) and then, someone (dressed as a doctor) comes along: 'well technically you dont exist because everything you perceive as self is essentially just a hallucination caused by mental disorder. We are unable to eradicate you from the brain you are currently occupying, so we try to put up with you as best as we can.'
'Well, thanks, can I have your scalpel for a second please?'
On December 04 2012 16:08 tokicheese wrote: I think it's pretty clearly a mental "issue". It's not necessarily a negative thing but it is a product of your mind. I don't know enough about the DSM to say whether or not it should be included but imo it should. Someone who is distressed by something occurring in their mind that they cannot help imo is suffering from a mental disorder.
As has been said other times in this thread, what's happening in the mind of a transgendered individual isn't what's distressing them. They identify with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth, and they are generally pretty comfortable with that (at least after they have had some time to get use to it). What they aren't comfortable with is their body. The fact that it is incongruent with their identified gender makes it hard for the to function in society as a person of that gender. It may also disgust them or generally make them depressed (very few women think they look attractive with a penis and vice versa). So the issue is that something has gone wrong in their mind, its that their body and presentation in society is making their life as their identified gender difficult.
You are simplifying the issue by trying to blame society alone here. If someone feels uncomfortable with having a penis, that is not entirely an interpersonal conflict. Those conflicts do exist, but there are still internal psychological conflicts as well which exist independently.
Research has afaik proven that there are indeed m/f brains
I don't think there is any scientific test which can deduce a persons gender. There may be indications, but it is still just a slight correlation.
can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
there is a difference between having a mental disorder and essentially being one (being told that I mean). Most people in therapy I know regard it as part of themselves, but it does not define them on an absolute level.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder? I mean, if there is absolutely nothing wrong with their brain, then obviously they don't have a disorder; but as far as I can tell, most of the reasoning behind the decision of the APA was based on social/political reasons. I don't know though, maybe someone else has more information on that kind of thing?
On December 04 2012 16:21 cresse wrote: This is a good thing.
One of the biggest problems surrounding transgenderism and transsexuality (they are slightly different things, often lumped together) is that they are not easily understood by the general populace, and there's not a whole lot of incentive to learn about them because... well, they're different. Especially on the internet, where that sort of behavior is streamlined. According to studies, people spend something like two whole seconds on a webpage or thread or whatever that they're not interested in. Why would you read about something that you don't understand when you can watch streams or look at pictures of puppies instead?
The APA removing transgenderism from the DSM is a step in a wonderful direction. Hopefully this raises awareness and gets people eager to read literature about it, or understand it in general.
Generally you could cut down the mental disorder category to very few categories. Permanent brain anomaly and transient brain anomaly and other conditions. A lot of things in DSM is transient, which is problematic, because there is no real way of getting a diagnose revoked from your mental cv.
The "disorder" related to transgender is related to depression/grief in it being cureable to some degree. The cured person, however, is still pinned to the diagnosis by potential employers and the lack of experience gained in the period of illness is killing their chances of acquiring a job. Essentially a diagnosis is a lifelong burden, no matter how cured you get and that is the most pressing problem!
Now we can discuss what exactly should be in DSM. Mostly I believe it is used as a reference for conditions with special needs. That is a far too general principle and it can be discussed to death what constitutes such. No doubt it depends on society. For now there is a need for society to change towards a less judgemental way of looking at people with a diagnoses. Afterwards there is a need to redefine what kinds of disorders are "need to know". In the end there is a need for DSM to adapt to a much more fluid reality.
When I hear talk of not feeling like your gender, or that the brain is of the wrong gender, you lose me. Biologically, gender is pretty straightforward. Except for mutations, you are either male or female, no exceptions, and it's impossible to confuse the two.
Feminism tries to make male and female into the same thing, while the concept of transgender goes the other way, claiming that if you don't relate to your gender, you should change.
Neither of these concepts would exist if we just saw the genders for what they actually were, and got rid of the stereotypes. I don't see any reason why a man couldn't wear a dress, put on a lot of makeup, and overall act in a stereotypical female way, without having to question his gender. Why let stereotypes confuse you?
If someone feels like they don't belong to their gender, then maybe they should try redefining their ideas about what gender really is, rather than changing themselves. I just think it's sad, because you can't question your gender without questioning your existence.
Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not against transgenders. I'm not gonna decide what is allowed to do with your own body, but when someone says that a certain part of them feels like and qualifies them as the other gender, it doesn't make sense, and it shows a lack of understanding in genetics.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder? I mean, if there is absolutely nothing wrong with their brain, then obviously they don't have a disorder; but as far as I can tell, most of the reasoning behind the decision of the APA was based on social/political reasons. I don't know though, maybe someone else has more information on that kind of thing?
I have nothing more than an armchair knowledge of psychology/neurology, so I won't pretend I'm an expert, but afaik there's fairly conclusive evidence that trans people's brains are wired differently than "normal" people's. I certainly don't think that their motivation was social/political, though; the common consensus on trans rights is very far from being in trans people's favor.
I can certainly tell you from a fairly wide breadth of anecdotal experience that trans people are generally much happier after transitioning, but I won't claim that as fact.
On December 04 2012 17:03 ninini wrote: When I hear talk of not feeling like your gender, or that the brain is of the wrong gender, you lose me. Biologically, gender is pretty straightforward. Except for mutations, you are either male or female, no exceptions, and it's impossible to confuse the two.
Feminism tries to make male and female into the same thing, while the concept of transgender goes the other way, claiming that if you don't relate to your gender, you should change.
Neither of these concepts would exist if we just saw the genders for what they actually were, and got rid of the stereotypes. I don't see any reason why a man couldn't wear a dress, put on a lot of makeup, and overall act in a stereotypical female way, without having to question his gender. Why let stereotypes confuse you?
If someone feels like they don't belong to their gender, then maybe they should try redefining their ideas about what gender really is, rather than changing themselves. I just think it's sad, because you can't question your gender without questioning your existence.
Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not against transgenders. I'm not gonna decide what is allowed to do with your own body, but when someone says that a certain part of them feels like and qualifies them as the other gender, it doesn't make sense, and it shows a lack of understanding in genetics.
Actually, "biologically," sex and gender are an incredibly complicated subject that biologists struggle with constantly. If you're interested, ArsTechnica's Kate Shaw is running a continuing series on the subject (link).
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
Reading that quote in the OP, I'm wondering. If you're born a girl but you want to be a man, how do you know what it feels like to be a man? I mean, I've read about people who had a sexchange but later reverted it, which kind of implies that it was all in their head. Like, I have zero idea about what it would be like to be a woman.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
The medical term is "GRS" (gender reassignment surgery), and, for the most part, it's a positive change, though there's obviously a lot of grey area. FtM transsexuals, for example, generally have a harder time integrating into normal society, because surgical science hasn't figured out how to make a functioning penis, which limits sexual options.
afaik there's fairly conclusive evidence that trans people's brains are wired differently than "normal" people's.
These sorts of statements always strike me as odd and a little humorous.
After all, absolutely everything we think and do is dictated by our brains, so everything is "wired" in some way. The fact that I decided to have a tuna sandwich today could be deduced from my brain if the knowledge and technology was sufficiently advanced. People still have this idea that the thoughts and the hardware are somehow distinct and separate, and that discovering a difference in a brain proves that only certain thoughts are "wired" that way, instead of ALL thoughts.
I'm shying away from the term "wired" now, because I know people will make an arbitrary distinction between the brain's architecture and the signals within it. My point is, it is all determined by something, what difference does it really make what it is determined by?
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
This is actually a very interesting question... And the reason it is so interesting is because the best treatment and ALSO the best medical/social assessment is actually determined by what we are capable of doing.
For example, if decades ago there was discovered a drug that could "reverse" homosexuality, then homosexuality would still be classified as a mental disorder or illness and treated/eliminated. Since no such drug exists, and since reparative therapy doesn't work, we conclude that society is the problem and not the brain. Really interesting when you think about it, that the best treatment in some circumstances is to convince ourselves it isn't actually a problem at all, because we are powerless to change it.
On December 04 2012 15:59 Troxle wrote: I'll give it from my side. I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
I don't mean to come off as offensive (but I know this will), but don't you think wanting to mutilate yourself or any of the other things you mentioned could be considered a mental disorder?
I hope I don't come off as an asshole, I legitimately just can't really wrap my head around the subject. I have several gay friends but I think this is an entirely different ballpark. I also don't really understand how this is an issue of civil rights, if anyone cares to explain.
To the people saying that its not scientific to not call it a disorder:
Wiktionary: Disorder is a physical or psychical malfunction.
Either you can take the stand that it is something wrong in their (the transgenders) mind, or that it is something wrong with their bodies. Since we tend to put greater emphasis on the mind when judging others, I say it is less damning to say its something wrong with their bodies (if you have to choose one). This is also in line with what the transgenders themselves feel. A more scientific approach would be to consider that the body in itself and the mind in itself, of a transgender, is perfectly fine. Then the best, the most precise description would be to state that for a transgender there is a mismatch between body and mind. And that is precisely what APA is saying.
Call it for what it is, avoid baggage, that is the scientific way.
Funnily enough, I have more problem with cosmetic surgery like breast and lip enlargement. Probably because those ideals seems to be pushed upon us externally, and are much less natural (and more akin to wanting to remove an arm). Btw, saying that wanting a sex-change is the same as wanting to remove an arm is similar to saying that women are amputees because they don't have a penis.
afaik there's fairly conclusive evidence that trans people's brains are wired differently than "normal" people's.
These sorts of statements always strike me as odd and a little humorous.
After all, absolutely everything we think and do is dictated by our brains, so everything is "wired" in some way. The fact that I decided to have a tuna sandwich today could be deduced from my brain if the knowledge and technology was sufficiently advanced. People still have this idea that the thoughts and the hardware are somehow distinct and separate, and that discovering a difference in a brain proves that only certain thoughts are "wired" that way, instead of ALL thoughts.
I'm shying away from the term "wired" now, because I know people will make an arbitrary distinction between the brain's architecture and the signals within it. My point is, it is all determined by something, what difference does it really make what it is determined by?
I don't know if this is a useful analogy, but the "wiring" is sort of like the hardware of your PC. If you try to install 64bit software on a 32bit machine, it might kind of work, but it's a hell of a lot better to switch to 64 because that's what the hardware was meant to execute.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
This is actually a very interesting question... And the reason it is so interesting is because the best treatment and ALSO the best medical/social assessment is actually determined by what we are capable of doing.
For example, if decades ago there was discovered a drug that could "reverse" homosexuality, then homosexuality would still be classified as a mental disorder or illness and treated/eliminated. Since no such drug exists, and since reparative therapy doesn't work, we conclude that society is the problem and not the brain. Really interesting when you think about it, that the best treatment in some circumstances is to convince ourselves it isn't actually a problem at all, because we are powerless to change it.
Biology has (recently) taught us that gender, sex, and sexuality are very fluid. Sexuality/gender issues is one of the cutting edges of biology research, and we're learning more and more about how little we know every day.
I don't mean to come off as offensive (but I know this will), but don't you think wanting to mutilate yourself or any of the other things you mentioned could be considered a mental disorder?
I hope I don't come off as an asshole, I legitimately just can't really wrap my head around the subject. I have several gay friends but I think this is an entirely different ballpark. I also don't really understand how this is an issue of civil rights, if anyone cares to explain.
One could argue that the drive to self-mutilation is a societal issue, not a psychiatric one. If we accept that trans people have a right to be who they are, and aren't discriminated for it, then s/he wouldn't have any impulse to self-mutilate; trained doctors would perform the procedure, covered by insurance.
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
I'll give it from my side.
I don't exactly have issues with how I look other than I look male. I know I am an attractive/cute male. I get complimented about it all the time. But that's not me. I identify as a female, and feel that my body should have been female to match as well. The options to correct it are rather simple honestly. I'll take some anti-androgens to stop the testosterone from further masculinizin' me and I'll take estradial to put estrogen in my system. This will give me softer skin, less muscle mass, and breasts so I will appear outwardly, as a cisfemale (someone who was born female and does not identify under the trans umbrella). As far as surgery goes, I will not opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) because I don't have cosmetic issues with myself, sure my chin could probably use it and so could my forehead, but I'll look female without it and I'm not vain enough to care. As far as SRS/GRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery/Genital Reassignment Surgery) goes, I do plan to get this. I guess you could call it a cosmetic reason, because I don't want to be walkin' around in tight women's clothes with a bulge in my pants that makes onlookers skeptical. It also feels very foreign to me when my male bits are bein' active (whether masturbatin' or durin' sexual penetration). Now I plan to pay for that on my own, but that's my choice. For some people, they really can't stand their male parts and have gone to drastic lengths (I've had a few episodes where I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
Depends on the company, the country and the surgeon. And that's the price for male to female. If I remember correctly, female to male surgery starts around $70k and only jumps up?
I've always wondered about this and this seems like an appropriate place to ask so~
When someone does the female > male or male > female surgery, what is sex like? Vagina's are pretty crazy things and I guess a penis is too, but can you actually "get off" like a natural born male or female? Can the doctors make it where a female > male is able to ejaculate? Does it get hard on its own? Or is there some kind of thing they do to make it hard? Can the male > female women cum? I understand wanting to look like the sex you identify with, but the actual act of having sex is a major part of daily (or in some cases monthly) lives of people. I would be shocked if people were giving up the ability to have an orgasm to have the surgery, but if they are then its a testament to their dedication to this life changing procedure.
I know that sounds kind of vulgar, but again, I grew up in a really sheltered part of the world in a really sheltered family. I'm pretty clueless about this stuff and the first link I tried looked innocent but it was like searching lemonparty or whitehouse @.@ (cannot unsee).
Seems strange to me that they were ever considered mentally ill in the first place. So, its good that they don't have that cloud of persecution hanging over their heads anymore. Thanks <3
If somebody is willing to stuff themselves with drugs to get tits and a figure that sort of resembles a female then I believe that those people have something wrong with them.
Also... Transgender from female to male is fucked up, have you seen what they do? They get these fake shrivelled up dicks.
Male to Female they just chop your dick off and do a few other things, however I believe any form of self mutilation to be something you are not is screwed up.
I'm sure if I had surgery to be changed from a human to dolphin, people would say I was mentally unstable.
On December 04 2012 17:43 blug wrote: It should be considered a mental disorder.
If somebody is willing to stuff themselves with drugs to get tits and a figure that sort of resembles a female then I believe that those people have something wrong with them.
Also... Transgender from female to male is fucked up, have you seen what they do? They get these fake shrivelled up dicks.
Male to Female they just chop your dick off and do a few other things, however I believe any form of self mutilation to be something you are not is screwed up.
I'm sure if I had surgery to be changed from a human to dolphin, people would say I was mentally unstable.
On December 04 2012 17:33 Joedaddy wrote: I've always wondered about this and this seems like an appropriate place to ask so~
When someone does the female > male or male > female surgery, what is sex like? Vagina's are pretty crazy things and I guess a penis is too, but can you actually "get off" like a natural born male or female?
yes, for the most part
Can the doctors make it where a female > male is able to ejaculate?
orgasm, yes. ejaculate, no.
Does it get hard on its own? Or is there some kind of thing they do to make it hard?
the testosterone-enlarged clitoris/penis gets hard, if they chose a metoidioplasty, their penis is cut free from the clit hood and is basically a functioning micropenis. the trans guys that get phalloplasty to have a more penetrative penis need a pump installed inside it to get hard
Can the male > female women cum?
yes
I understand wanting to look like the sex you identify with, but the actual act of having sex is a major part of daily (or in some cases monthly) lives of people. I would be shocked if people were giving up the ability to have an orgasm to have the surgery, but if they are then its a testament to their dedication to this life changing procedure.
losing the ability to orgasm is a risk that we take and have to weigh, but it's not an especially large risk with the advances in medicine and surgery technology
also, for the record, not every trans person wants or needs surgery.. some are perfectly content with the equipment they were born with, as long as they are treated as their identified gender
It seems like a big discussion over semantics, should people who want to change their sex be still treated?: yes, and should people still not discriminate against members of the transsexual and transgender community?: yes. Now will this stop anyone who should transition from transitioning, or result in a body (public or private) preventing them? Highly unlikely. Will this stop anyone who is prejudiced towards the trans community because it was classified as a disorder? Also highly unlikely. So maybe it will stop prejudice, but I'm a sceptic in this regard.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
This is actually a very interesting question... And the reason it is so interesting is because the best treatment and ALSO the best medical/social assessment is actually determined by what we are capable of doing.
For example, if decades ago there was discovered a drug that could "reverse" homosexuality, then homosexuality would still be classified as a mental disorder or illness and treated/eliminated. Since no such drug exists, and since reparative therapy doesn't work, we conclude that society is the problem and not the brain. Really interesting when you think about it, that the best treatment in some circumstances is to convince ourselves it isn't actually a problem at all, because we are powerless to change it.
Yes and no. Once you start deciding that you can just modify people's brains, especially if it is against their will (and if it's not, there would be plenty of homosexuals who would refuse "treatment" and still want civil rights, so nothing will have been eliminated), to conform to your own ideas of normalcy, you're starting to get into very dangerous waters.
As an example, there are deaf people who actually strongly dislike parents getting cochlear implants for their deaf children so that they can hear. These people consider such implants as "genocide" (yes, some of them use that word) against deaf culture. Now personally, I disagree with such a position, as there's a very clear and objective problem with deafness.
But something similar is true for people with high-functioning Autism. Many of them see the effort to find a drug to diminish or cure such Autism to be anathema to letting such people develop naturally.
I think at this point, there are real concerns about the idea of "curing" such people with mind-affecting drugs, even if a "cure" was discovered that actually worked. You know, without the psychological scarring and such that modern "treatments" cause.
On December 04 2012 17:43 blug wrote: It should be considered a mental disorder.
If somebody is willing to stuff themselves with drugs to get tits and a figure that sort of resembles a female then I believe that those people have something wrong with them.
Yes. Something is wrong with them. Their brains are squatting in the wrong bodies. That's the point. They want to change their bodies to match their brains.
On December 04 2012 17:43 blug wrote: Also... Transgender from female to male is fucked up, have you seen what they do? They get these fake shrivelled up dicks.
Male to Female they just chop your dick off and do a few other things, however I believe any form of self mutilation to be something you are not is screwed up.
So, your basis for believing it's a mental disorder has nothing to do with scientific inquiry, facts, or evidence of any kind. It's because you find it personally repulsive.
That's the other kind of issue people have. Not so much a "it's their choice, and I can be a dick to people for their choices" as a "transpeople freak me out."
Somehow, I can't bring myself to care if they freak you out.
On December 04 2012 17:43 blug wrote: I'm sure if I had surgery to be changed from a human to dolphin, people would say I was mentally unstable.
Nice strawman, but that doesn't actually deal with any argument presented here. Thanks for playing.
On December 04 2012 18:03 Kerotan wrote: It seems like a big discussion over semantics, should people who want to change their sex be still treated?: yes, and should people still not discriminate against members of the transsexual and transgender community?: yes. Now will this stop anyone who should transition from transitioning, or result in a body (public or private) preventing them? Highly unlikely. Will this stop anyone who is prejudiced towards the trans community because it was classified as a disorder? Also highly unlikely. So maybe it will stop prejudice, but I'm a sceptic in this regard.
A big part of science (which people seem to forget is what Psychology is) is classification. Biological classification is all about documenting the relationship between species, as this can offer insights into them and so forth.
It's important to psychology to know what is and is not "behavior within expected human norms". Indeed, drawing that line is half of the point of the entire field. "Behavior within expected human norms" are things psychologists should not be trying to "fix" in patients.
By declassifying it as a disorder, it means that psychology no longer considers it a mental problem. If a psychologists detects gender dysphoria in a patient, the DSM-V now states that this is not something they should be trying to cure or treat in some way.
So no, it's not mere semantics. Or rather it is, but it's semantics in a way that matters. It's saying that the stomach isn't part of the respiratory system; it's in the digestive system. So you should go see an expert on the digestive system, not a pulminologist when you have stomach problems.
On December 04 2012 17:03 ninini wrote: When I hear talk of not feeling like your gender, or that the brain is of the wrong gender, you lose me. Biologically, gender is pretty straightforward. Except for mutations, you are either male or female, no exceptions, and it's impossible to confuse the two.
Feminism tries to make male and female into the same thing, while the concept of transgender goes the other way, claiming that if you don't relate to your gender, you should change.
Neither of these concepts would exist if we just saw the genders for what they actually were, and got rid of the stereotypes. I don't see any reason why a man couldn't wear a dress, put on a lot of makeup, and overall act in a stereotypical female way, without having to question his gender. Why let stereotypes confuse you?
If someone feels like they don't belong to their gender, then maybe they should try redefining their ideas about what gender really is, rather than changing themselves. I just think it's sad, because you can't question your gender without questioning your existence.
Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not against transgenders. I'm not gonna decide what is allowed to do with your own body, but when someone says that a certain part of them feels like and qualifies them as the other gender, it doesn't make sense, and it shows a lack of understanding in genetics.
It's not about gender roles. Everything you said about what gender really is is absolutely correct. There's no reason that a man can't wear makeup and a dress other than ridiculous social bullshit telling him that it's somehow emasculating. But that doesn't have anything to do with transsexualism. Being trans is primarily about your physical sex; there are plenty of butch trans women and effeminate trans men out there. I myself am totally happy acting in a way which society dictates is masculine. I sit around on the internet watching Starcraft, playing DotA, swearing at people, not socialising much or having any close friendships. I make dick jokes constantly, watched the shit out of The Avengers and have no interest in chick flicks, rom-coms, whatever, I have no particular interest in skirts and dresses or makeup or pink, I do watch MLP but that's a show for guys nowadays. I'm not trans because I want to do 'girl stuff', it's because, for some reason that nobody, including me, truly understands, on some basic level some part of my brain just requires that I be female. Which means doing all the nerdy guy stuff that I do right now except I'm physically female and people call me she. That's about it.
That being said, there are plenty of trans women who act in a feminine way too, and trans men who act masculine, just like there are plenty of cis (ie, not trans) men and women who act in accordance to their gender roles. A majority, in fact. But there are also a decent number of trans people like me who don't fit into the gender role of their preferred sex, so saying that we all just need to abandon society's ideas of what men/women should do doesn't work.
On December 04 2012 18:21 Twilight Sparkle wrote:But there are also a decent number of trans people like me who don't fit into the gender role of their preferred sex, so saying that we all just need to abandon society's ideas of what men/women should do doesn't work.
Maybe someone could explain more clearly why I'm wrong, but even though I am the biggest proponent in the world (family member is trans), I fail to see how a mental disconnect like feeling like the gender of your conciousness doesn't match your body ISN'T a disorder qualifying for treatment under DSM? I mean, if we are offering a slough of medical treatments for this identity issue, then there should be a medical diagnosis based on a disorder. It is in no way the same to me as homosexuality, which isn't something that should even involve a doctor's input.
Hell, how can we diagnose a child or teen and allow them to begin social transition without defining it as a doctor diagnosed medical issue? How can we give hormone blockers for something that isn't even a disorder?
On December 04 2012 17:33 Joedaddy wrote: I've always wondered about this and this seems like an appropriate place to ask so~
When someone does the female > male or male > female surgery, what is sex like? Vagina's are pretty crazy things and I guess a penis is too, but can you actually "get off" like a natural born male or female?
Does it get hard on its own? Or is there some kind of thing they do to make it hard?
the testosterone-enlarged clitoris/penis gets hard, if they chose a metoidioplasty, their penis is cut free from the clit hood and is basically a functioning micropenis. the trans guys that get phalloplasty to have a more penetrative penis need a pump installed inside it to get hard
I understand wanting to look like the sex you identify with, but the actual act of having sex is a major part of daily (or in some cases monthly) lives of people. I would be shocked if people were giving up the ability to have an orgasm to have the surgery, but if they are then its a testament to their dedication to this life changing procedure.
losing the ability to orgasm is a risk that we take and have to weigh, but it's not an especially large risk with the advances in medicine and surgery technology
also, for the record, not every trans person wants or needs surgery.. some are perfectly content with the equipment they were born with, as long as they are treated as their identified gender
I think it is quite the opposite actually
People who goes through trans therapy, either through hormones or a combination with surgery etc. often feel extremely liberated and happy for the first time in their life, and their sexual desire and ability to experience orgasms is usually increased through their transition, not the other way around.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
This is actually a very interesting question... And the reason it is so interesting is because the best treatment and ALSO the best medical/social assessment is actually determined by what we are capable of doing.
For example, if decades ago there was discovered a drug that could "reverse" homosexuality, then homosexuality would still be classified as a mental disorder or illness and treated/eliminated. Since no such drug exists, and since reparative therapy doesn't work, we conclude that society is the problem and not the brain. Really interesting when you think about it, that the best treatment in some circumstances is to convince ourselves it isn't actually a problem at all, because we are powerless to change it.
Yes and no. Once you start deciding that you can just modify people's brains, especially if it is against their will (and if it's not, there would be plenty of homosexuals who would refuse "treatment" and still want civil rights, so nothing will have been eliminated), to conform to your own ideas of normalcy, you're starting to get into very dangerous waters.
As an example, there are deaf people who actually strongly dislike parents getting cochlear implants for their deaf children so that they can hear. These people consider such implants as "genocide" (yes, some of them use that word) against deaf culture. Now personally, I disagree with such a position, as there's a very clear and objective problem with deafness.
But something similar is true for people with high-functioning Autism. Many of them see the effort to find a drug to diminish or cure such Autism to be anathema to letting such people develop naturally.
I think at this point, there are real concerns about the idea of "curing" such people with mind-affecting drugs, even if a "cure" was discovered that actually worked. You know, without the psychological scarring and such that modern "treatments" cause.
You are assuming the treatment has to be an after the fact cure. Well then, suppose the treatment was something preventative instead of retroactive. Suppose for example a mother could take a pill which would guarantee a straight child.
I keep typing up something to post, then deleting it. I honestly can not figure out where to stand on this. Obviously, the ruling from more of a PC stance to remove discrimination is a good thing, and thus I have no issues with it.
How to actually view transgendered people and their problems are a completely different and complex issue. The trains of thought that this discussion uses move on quickly to a metaphysical discussion of what makes you actually you. Whether or not I think it's a mental disorder isn't even relevant, really. A person has the right to try and be happy and in the meantime it's not like we have anything resembling a fix to the feelings a trans-person feels about their body.... so as weird as surgery is I can't really fault a person for taking that path.
On December 04 2012 18:44 BrTarolg wrote: I think it is quite the opposite actually
People who goes through trans therapy, either through hormones or a combination with surgery etc. often feel extremely liberated and happy for the first time in their life, and their sexual desire and ability to experience orgasms is usually increased through their transition, not the other way around.
first of all, I agree.. I never wanted sex until after I was happy with my body through transition, even pre-surgery. second of all, I'm not talking about transition's effects on the desire to orgasm.. I'm talking about surgery's effect on the mechanical ability to orgasm, it's entirely possible to never orgasm again if the surgery doesn't go well, but it's a risk you take, some would say it's not even a risk to them, I know someone who masturbated for the first time at 21, after their sex change.
I'm not even entirely sure what you're disagreeing with me on here
It's not really hard to understand, people can be born with three arms, with no eyes, with congenital analgesia, etc. so why couldn't they be born with a wrong body?
But doesn't that mean that it's not a mental disorder but a body disorder? As in a physical handicap?
I'm kinda uneducated on this matter, but how advanced is gender/sex (sorry! I don't know which one it is) reassignment surgery?
Scientifically, it either is or isn't a disorder. It is what it is. So if they are declassifying it based on some new study that says its not a disorder, then that's fine. But declassifying it in order to be nicer to transgendered people... I'm not really on board with that. There are better ways to prevent poor treatment of transgendered people than messing with our official definitions/terms.
On December 04 2012 12:40 DigiGnar wrote: It's mentally unhealthy not to trans if you know you're trans. Depression is unhealthy, so why not try to fix it?
It's like with people who feel they shouldn't have an arm. It's weird that they feel that, but they will be very depressed until that arm is gone. Some nations don't allow amputations that aren't life-threatening, so these people will cut the limb/whatever off without medical attention.
You've got to see that that is not a mentally healthy thing.
So, you can get the surgery for free still?
I'm not sure what i think about this really. If it was a disorder, then it's fair to 'cure' it for free. But if it's not even a disorder and it's just something some people want, then.. well why get that for free?
On December 04 2012 14:56 RockIronrod wrote: I'm mixed on this. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with your gender role, and identifying better with the other genders'. Not following social constructs isn't a mental disorder, in a civilized society they aren't really needed for survival anymore, we can safely evolve past them as a people. However, the body dysphoria part I can't get on board with. The want to physically change your body so radically should be considered a mental illness in my opinion, regardless of how/why. If someone identifies as another race, then I'm all on board with them following the cultures of that race, but if you're that bodily disgusted with yourself you'd resort to surgery to appear that race, I'd say you were mentally ill. I don't want to sound like a bigot, and I don't think transgender people should be discriminated against (hell, my favourite musicians are Yohio, tissue-hime and Boy motherfucking George), but I honestly think that being that insecure about your body is beyond something that should be regarded as mentally stable.
I guess as a tl;dr it could be said I draw the line on mentally sound and mentally ill on the willingness to get surgery.
I'd love to hear what I sound like from a third person perspective, because I don't want to be THAT guy, I kind of want to hear if I sound reasonable
I'll give it from my side.
I don't exactly have issues with how I look other than I look male. I know I am an attractive/cute male. I get complimented about it all the time. But that's not me. I identify as a female, and feel that my body should have been female to match as well. The options to correct it are rather simple honestly. I'll take some anti-androgens to stop the testosterone from further masculinizin' me and I'll take estradial to put estrogen in my system. This will give me softer skin, less muscle mass, and breasts so I will appear outwardly, as a cisfemale (someone who was born female and does not identify under the trans umbrella). As far as surgery goes, I will not opt for FFS (facial feminization surgery) because I don't have cosmetic issues with myself, sure my chin could probably use it and so could my forehead, but I'll look female without it and I'm not vain enough to care. As far as SRS/GRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery/Genital Reassignment Surgery) goes, I do plan to get this. I guess you could call it a cosmetic reason, because I don't want to be walkin' around in tight women's clothes with a bulge in my pants that makes onlookers skeptical. It also feels very foreign to me when my male bits are bein' active (whether masturbatin' or durin' sexual penetration). Now I plan to pay for that on my own, but that's my choice. For some people, they really can't stand their male parts and have gone to drastic lengths (I've had a few episodes where I got so dysphoric I contemplated cuttin' it off with a knife, but I thought the better of it cause I need it intact for SRS...). Its not somethin' we can control either. We can bury and smother them for years, but no matter what, they find their way to the surface and we get overwhelmed with dysphoria. Imagine the most traumatic event in your life and how it impacted you. Now imagine that event reoccurin' daily (I've been in the same buildin' as a shootin' as well as a car wreck that was less than a 6 inches shy of 5 dead people and suicides of a father-like figure and I still consider this to be the most traumatic thing in my life, it makes me cry more than the thoughts and fears of those other events).
On December 04 2012 15:57 dUTtrOACh wrote:
On December 04 2012 15:35 Alay wrote:
20k+/- depending on the surgeon.
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
Depends on the company, the country and the surgeon. And that's the price for male to female. If I remember correctly, female to male surgery starts around $70k and only jumps up?
Thanks for sharing, that takes a lot of courage (I know it's anonymous internet whatever, but still). Posts like this are the slow chisel that chips away at the ugly monolith of bigotry... you're humanizing the issue in a way that the people on the fence can't ignore. <3
I hope you're not misunderstanding my questions as some form of "shopping around". I just hate seeing false impressions of change or understanding being spewed forth while the medical profession milks everything they can out of people in a very desperate situation, possibly suffering from a depression that could hurt their ability to afford the surgery they desire (the way depression affects school & work, as well as its cascading effects that result from the economic hardship). There's not much I hate more than that type of atrocious shit. As a Canadian, I strongly believe in free healthcare, but tolerate the existence of progressive medicare in countries where free healthcare isn't available.
I'm not so sure what to think about this. I'm all for the fair treatment of transgender, and for giving them the chance to alter their body to be more in line with their real gender. But I think classifying it as a mental disorder is not inherently unfair. Unlike homosexuals, transgender people invariably seem to experience mental anguish by having a sex that does not match their gender. It always is a problem, and it often requires medical intervention, then the rationale for not classifying it as a disorder, seems rather thin. Though I must admit I'm not completely informed of the criteria that must be met for something to be a mental disorder.
Then again, if the label mental disorder is being used to discriminate against the transgender, it is probably a good social policy, but abusing what is essentially a scientific classification for social goals seems questionable to me. Though I must admit this probably does more good than harm.
On December 04 2012 19:58 Crushinator wrote: I'm not so sure what to think about this. I'm all for the fair treatment of transgender, and for giving them the chance to alter their body to be more in line with their real gender. But I think classifying it as a mental disorder is not inherently unfair. Unlike homosexuals, transgender people invariably seem to experience mental anguish by having a sex that does not match their gender. It always is a problem, and it often requires medical intervention, then the rationale for not classifying it as a disorder, seems rather thin. Though I must admit I'm not completely informed of the criteria that must be met for something to be a mental disorder.
It's not a mental disorder since the problem isn't in the brain, it's in the body. That transgender people may experience mental anguish doesn't change that. If you have a broken leg that's causing you a lot of pain, you may experience mental anguish too. Doesn't make a broken leg a mental disorder.
On December 04 2012 19:58 Crushinator wrote: I'm not so sure what to think about this. I'm all for the fair treatment of transgender, and for giving them the chance to alter their body to be more in line with their real gender. But I think classifying it as a mental disorder is not inherently unfair. Unlike homosexuals, transgender people invariably seem to experience mental anguish by having a sex that does not match their gender. It always is a problem, and it often requires medical intervention, then the rationale for not classifying it as a disorder, seems rather thin. Though I must admit I'm not completely informed of the criteria that must be met for something to be a mental disorder.
It's not a mental disorder since the problem isn't in the brain, it's in the body. That transgender people may experience mental anguish doesn't change that. If you have a broken leg that's causing you a lot of pain, you may experience mental anguish too. Doesn't make a broken leg a mental disorder.
Well, the problem is a mismatch between the brain and the body, isn't it? I think it is not intellectually correct to say that the problem is solely physical.
Ok first of all this is not meant to be disrespectful or insulting in any way it's actually a question maybe a stupid one too.
How about the evolutionary standpoint where a specie needs to reproduce itself to survive. When a person is gay or transgender his/her "mental disorder" stops itself from reproducing. Therefore it might be seen as a mental disorder because it goes against the instinct of any specie to reproduce itself.
On December 04 2012 20:08 Lanfire wrote: Ok first of all this is not meant to be disrespectful or insulting in any way it's actually a question maybe a stupid one too.
How about the evolutionary standpoint where a specie needs to reproduce itself to survive. When a person is gay or transgender his/her "mental disorder" stops itself from reproducing.
We don't define ourselves by our ability or desire to reproduce though. Not having an ability or desire to reproduce, can't be a sufficient or necessary condition for having a mental disorder.
^--- I'm pretty sure the "Angry straw liberals"-thing was considered martyring.
Genuine question since I didn't find it over the last couple of pages: In the case that wanting to have another gender is not considered a disorder what does that mean for insurances? Do they currently play "treatment" like medication or behavioral therapy? After the change, would they be required to pay for surgery or, since it's not a disorder anymore, required to pay for nothing at all?
If it's not categorized as some kind of disorder how can it achieve a different status as purely "cosmetic" operations? As far as I'm aware for e.g. breast enlargements/reductions if people want to get it payed by their insurance companies they have to get through rather lengthy and not really coherent tests to "prove" that they have some kind of psychological problem with the current state that can be easier fixed with surgery than with therapy.
Edit: QQ SHOULD PROBABLY READ FIRST THREE PAGES INSTEAD OF LAST THREE. Already been answered. >_>
On December 04 2012 12:30 Calm wrote: Sorry, I'm an idiot. This is a good thing.
Yeah this was a concern I had as well. It seems like there's still a classification that would allow for medical coverage to help with transitions for those who want it, though we'll need to see if in practice that turns out to be the case. I suspect though this was explicitly written to allow medical coverage! :D
In general both the DSM and ICD catalogues are so slow and backwards when it comes to anything that's not mainstream. Hell, BDSM is still a diagnosis in the ICD and an official desease in most european countries. =(
"Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
It's always kind of funny to see people flip out MASSIVELLY about any sex and gender related issue. Why do you think homosexuals/transgender people are the way they are? Do you think one day they woke up and decided to change their lives, "mutilate their bodies" like some people in this thread claim, be hated, discriminated and ostracised just for kicks and giggles?
People often carry their gender "badge" as some sort of pride "Oh look, I'm a man, look at these faggots" without considering the idea that they could have easily been in that person's shoes because, you know, no one actually chooses their sexuality or gender. It's just an interesting phenomenon in our species in general, basically EVERY SINGLE discrimination issue throughout our history has been about something a person cannot choose like the color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
However, sex and gender related issues take a lot longer to be accepted because at a fundamental biological level we notice and care about sex a lot more than most other things. So anything "unnatural" about it automatically makes us feel this repulsion. It makes sense except that we as human beings have this brain which can make rational logical decisions instead of following our instinctual tendencies. As an example, this is why we don't support bullying even though technically it's a perfectly normal mechanism in nature to "filter out the weak".
The line between which gender you're born with is extremely thin, your dad's sperm was flipping a coin, so to speak (god damn that sounds weird, I apologize). In some people, something "messed up" and now there's a mismatch between their mind and their body. Unless you have evidence that it's possible to "fix them" so they would be "normal" again, you have no fucking right to discriminate them upon that criteria.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
You're forgetting about mental harm. While changing may bring "harm" in one sense, it can be a "cure" for the depression one has when they aren't the sex they feel they should be. They aren't who they are. Otherwise, why would they feel so?
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
Well, what do you tell people who suffer from depression? just be happy? And it is absolutely beyond me how you can put the abstract concept of what gender and sex should be above the well being of another person. It's not like YOU lose anything if they actually have a chance to survive past age 30. I think you sound a lot like someone talking about cattle.
I'm a girl who is dating a trans girl, which doesn't make me an expert but I know bullshit when I see it...
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
1. A fully functional male body that the female brain isn't designed to handle. 2. You know who else thinks they are female? Females. Coincidence? I think not. 3. On a cellular level men and women are exactly the same, it's just a matter of gene expression induced by hormones. Change the hormones to E and the cells behave exactly as you would expect the cells to behave in a cisgendered female, physically the body changes as a result. Arguably the body becomes much more female than male. As for surgery, female reproductive organs are superior to male, it's an upgrade, not mutilation.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
Many have tried the strategy that you suggest and it usually ends in suicide, which really is a good option if you're trans, because the alternative is living in a nightmare from which you can never awake from (save with the power of estrogen).
So how exactly is something classified a mental disorder and do transgendered people fit that definition or not? If this is just a political thing then it is disappointing but predictable. If there is some standard and transgendered people do not fit that standard then ok.
On December 04 2012 21:08 Romantic wrote: So how exactly is something classified a mental disorder and do transgendered people fit that definition or not? If this is just a political thing then it is disappointing but predictable. If there is some standard and transgendered people do not fit that standard then ok.
The current version of the DSM characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering." It also notes that "...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of 'mental disorder'...different situations call for different definitions". It states that "there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder" (APA, 1994 and 2000). There are attempts to adjust the wording for the upcoming DSM-V.
Quote wiki.
Basically saying that it's a list of things that are in some way "bad" for the individual even if the individual doesn't recognize it as such.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
You're forgetting about mental harm. While changing may bring "harm" in one sense, it can be a "cure" for the depression one has when they aren't the sex they feel they should be. They aren't who they are. Otherwise, why would they feel so?
Mental harm can be helped with support and possibly drugs if needed.
Physical mutilation is unfixable, and the supposed purpose to commit this mutilation (gender reassignment) is a pipe dream far beyond modern technology. They will never be the opposite gender so why try? You are only doomed to failure and possibly increased mental harm and misery.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
Well, what do you tell people who suffer from depression? just be happy? And it is absolutely beyond me how you can put the abstract concept of what gender and sex should be above the well being of another person. It's not like YOU lose anything if they actually have a chance to survive past age 30. I think you sound a lot like someone talking about cattle.
You say you are putting their wellbeing first by supporting and even encouraging people to do irreparable physical damage to themselves.
I would argue you are just seeking to increase your own social status by supporting trendy causes.
Destroying your physically fit and healthy body to chase an unachievable dream is a bad decision. I think I am putting people's wellbeing first by saying: don't do such a thing.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
You're forgetting about mental harm. While changing may bring "harm" in one sense, it can be a "cure" for the depression one has when they aren't the sex they feel they should be. They aren't who they are. Otherwise, why would they feel so?
Mental harm can be helped with support and possibly drugs if needed.
Physical mutilation is unfixable, and the supposed purpose to commit this mutilation (gender reassignment) is a pipe dream far beyond modern technology. They will never be the opposite gender so why try? You are only doomed to failure and possibly increased mental harm and misery.
You aren't addressing the actual issue.
The question is, let's assume a FtM transsexual for now: a) Stay in a female body b) Get surgery to obtain a "not fully functional male body" including all the associated risks.
If b) makes those people happier, gets rid of their depressions and lets them lead a better life than a), why not? The question YOU are raising however is "Is it worse to be a non-functional man or a functional woman if you actually want to be a man?"
I have no clue on the data for that question. Do you? How many transgenders are there for who their problems get worse after surgery? While I can understand the thought process behind it just assuming that the "forever only half-way there"-thing is definitely worse than not being closer at all is something that's bad isn't a valid conclusion.
On December 04 2012 21:08 Romantic wrote: So how exactly is something classified a mental disorder and do transgendered people fit that definition or not? If this is just a political thing then it is disappointing but predictable. If there is some standard and transgendered people do not fit that standard then ok.
The current version of the DSM characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering." It also notes that "...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of 'mental disorder'...different situations call for different definitions". It states that "there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder" (APA, 1994 and 2000). There are attempts to adjust the wording for the upcoming DSM-V.
Quote wiki.
Basically saying that it's a list of things that are in some way "bad" for the individual even if the individual doesn't recognize it as such.
So... being transgendered is clearly a mental disorder and the change is a political one and\or sensitivity police in action? I am not surprised. White is black, the sky is the ground, mental conditions which clearly increase the risk of harm are not mental conditions which clearly increase the risk of harm.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
1. A fully functional male body that the female brain isn't designed to handle. 2. You know who else thinks they are female? Females. Coincidence? I think not. 3. On a cellular level men and women are exactly the same, it's just a matter of gene expression induced by hormones. Change the hormones to E and the cells behave exactly as you would expect the cells to behave in a cisgendered female, physically the body changes as a result. Arguably the body becomes much more female than male. As for surgery, female reproductive organs are superior to male, it's an upgrade, not mutilation.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
Many have tried the strategy that you suggest and it usually ends in suicide, which really is a good option if you're trans, because the alternative is living in a nightmare from which you can never awake from (save with the power of estrogen).
You are dating a woman who mutilated her body to be more like a man, or a man who mutilated his to be more like a woman? Sorry I don't understand trans- speak sometimes.
You claim women's genitalia are "superior" (bigoted much?) but that's irrelevant because a man can never have women's genitalia. He can only mutilate his own male genitalia. After mutilation he still doesn't have female genitalia.
I wonder what is more of a nightmare: realizing you are in fact the gender you were born as and wishing you hadn't done irreparable damage to yourself, or just accepting your perfectly healthy body for what it is. In reality they can never have the body of the opposite gender so no matter how hard you try this "nightmare" can't be taken away with modern technology.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
You're forgetting about mental harm. While changing may bring "harm" in one sense, it can be a "cure" for the depression one has when they aren't the sex they feel they should be. They aren't who they are. Otherwise, why would they feel so?
Mental harm can be helped with support and possibly drugs if needed.
Physical mutilation is unfixable, and the supposed purpose to commit this mutilation (gender reassignment) is a pipe dream far beyond modern technology. They will never be the opposite gender so why try? You are only doomed to failure and possibly increased mental harm and misery.
You aren't addressing the actual issue.
The question is, let's assume a FtM transsexual for now: a) Stay in a female body b) Get surgery to obtain a "not fully functional male body" including all the associated risks.
If b) makes those people happier, gets rid of their depressions and lets them lead a better life than a), why not? The question YOU are raising however is "Is it worse to be a non-functional man or a functional woman if you actually want to be a man?"
I have no clue on the data for that question. Do you? How many transgenders are there for who their problems get worse after surgery? While I can understand the thought process behind it just assuming that the "forever only half-way there"-thing is definitely worse than not being closer at all is something that's bad isn't a valid conclusion.
I am considering how to approach this disorder for treatment purposes. The options are:
1. Address the physical aspects, attempt to "transition", end up with a mutilated body that can never be the opposite gender. In the end the patient is physically damaged and can never be healed. This supposed "treatment" which could never have been successful in the first place is only causing harm. 2. Address the mental aspects. Teach people it is okay to accept themselves for who they are. Prescribe mental drugs if needed.
Now it seems plainly obvious to me that only one of these treatment options even has a possibility of success. Even if you can nurse an extreme level of mental delusion in the case of #1 to convince patients their mutilated body is as good as the real thing, you have left them physically unable to reproduce or feel sensations they were able to with a healthy body.
Better late than never I guess, so much crap in that manual that is considered as a "mental disorder" that really isn't. Gay people used to be labeled as severe mentally disturbed according to the SDM as well.
A disorder is whatever is different from the standard model. They are renaming it to stop retarded people from thinking it's actually a "problem". A lot of shit is mental disorder including depression and most of the causes of an abnormally high IQ, some are positive some negative.
In reality they can never have the body of the opposite gender so no matter how hard you try this "nightmare" can't be taken away with modern technology.
According to all the people in the thread with actual personal experience, it seems like surgery and hormonal therapy does indeed improve these peoples mental health and quality of life, so you are clearly wrong.
I have never met anyone who is against gender reassignment surgery who also fully understands the patient's situation. People against it are ALWAYS of the "ew that's gross" and "why would they do that" type, and simply don't understand so they can't empathize.
There is one thing I'm curious about though. Suppose a female persona is in the possession of a male body, and naturally does not feel fully comfortable with the male aspects of the body.
But theoretically let's say this person lives in an all-male environment and has never seen a woman. What would the effects be? Would she know what she is supposed to resemble physically?
This strikes me as a purely diplomatical move and I'm not sure if it's for the best.
A mental disorder is a state of mind with debilitating or negative impact on a persons life. If you hate your life because you perceive yourself to be born with the wrong gender thats a state of mind with debilitating or negative impact on your life. Therefore it is a mental disorder.
I don't doubt that behind every transgender person there is a lively and friendly mind. However, that doesn't justify making it seem like it's completely normal and/or healthy.
Putting this into perspective if someone was to believe he was born as Michael Jackson he would have to be considered mentally healthy.
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
In this case, nothing has been cured. You still think you are female, and still have a male body and male DNA. But now you are physically unhealthy and your male body can't function properly. You will also never become a female, as we don't posess such advanced technology. Forever you are now stuck in a physically mutilated male body. The "treatment" has only caused irreparable damage, not cured anything.
How about an alternative scenario:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You accept yourself for who you are (someone who has a male body).
In this case no physical damage has been caused. You are still completely healthy and have all your working parts. No harm is caused by chasing an unattainable goal.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
You're forgetting about mental harm. While changing may bring "harm" in one sense, it can be a "cure" for the depression one has when they aren't the sex they feel they should be. They aren't who they are. Otherwise, why would they feel so?
Mental harm can be helped with support and possibly drugs if needed.
Physical mutilation is unfixable, and the supposed purpose to commit this mutilation (gender reassignment) is a pipe dream far beyond modern technology. They will never be the opposite gender so why try? You are only doomed to failure and possibly increased mental harm and misery.
You aren't addressing the actual issue.
The question is, let's assume a FtM transsexual for now: a) Stay in a female body b) Get surgery to obtain a "not fully functional male body" including all the associated risks.
If b) makes those people happier, gets rid of their depressions and lets them lead a better life than a), why not? The question YOU are raising however is "Is it worse to be a non-functional man or a functional woman if you actually want to be a man?"
I have no clue on the data for that question. Do you? How many transgenders are there for who their problems get worse after surgery? While I can understand the thought process behind it just assuming that the "forever only half-way there"-thing is definitely worse than not being closer at all is something that's bad isn't a valid conclusion.
I am considering how to approach this disorder for treatment purposes. The options are:
1. Address the physical aspects, attempt to "transition", end up with a mutilated body that can never be the opposite gender. In the end the patient is physically damaged and can never be healed. This supposed "treatment" which could never have been successful in the first place is only causing harm. 2. Address the mental aspects. Teach people it is okay to accept themselves for who they are. Prescribe mental drugs if needed.
Now it seems plainly obvious to me that only one of these treatment options even has a possibility of success. Even if you can nurse an extreme level of mental delusion in the case of #1 to convince patients their mutilated body is as good as the real thing, you have left them physically unable to reproduce or feel sensations they were able to with a healthy body.
You talk complete cobblers. In the medical field, therapy and then (if deemed appropriate) courses of HRT are the treatment for people with Gender dysphoria. Your position rides off so much cis-privilege its amusing to me, we could talk all day about how I think your ideas about what the Trans* experience is, are terrible, but staying on topic, EVEN if the APA still considered GID a disorder, no right minded medical professional would conduct themselves as you would desire. In short, trans people do not desire your treatment, medical professionals would not agree to it, it amounts to erasure.
On December 04 2012 21:08 Selendis wrote: I'm a girl who is dating a trans girl, which doesn't make me an expert but I know bullshit when I see it...
On December 04 2012 20:53 stevelouise wrote: "Transgender" people have fully functional and healthy bodies. There's no problem with their body.
Consider:
1. You have a fully functional, healthy male body, with perfectly good DNA. 2. You think you are a female. 3. You mutilate your male body, becoming a mutilated physically damaged person with a non-functional body, but still Male.
1. A fully functional male body that the female brain isn't designed to handle. 2. You know who else thinks they are female? Females. Coincidence? I think not. 3. On a cellular level men and women are exactly the same, it's just a matter of gene expression induced by hormones. Change the hormones to E and the cells behave exactly as you would expect the cells to behave in a cisgendered female, physically the body changes as a result. Arguably the body becomes much more female than male. As for surgery, female reproductive organs are superior to male, it's an upgrade, not mutilation.
I think the same approach can be taken in a lot of cases. If a child feels like a basketball player but was born very short, rather than surgery to make them taller we should just teach people to accept themselves for who they are.
Many have tried the strategy that you suggest and it usually ends in suicide, which really is a good option if you're trans, because the alternative is living in a nightmare from which you can never awake from (save with the power of estrogen).
You are dating a woman who mutilated her body to be more like a man, or a man who mutilated his to be more like a woman? Sorry I don't understand trans- speak sometimes.
She is dating a woman who was born male, but became a woman. BTW why do you feel the need to use words like "mutilated"? Attacking those who are different from you by describing them with unpleasant words is not a sign of a person who is being fair and logical.
I wonder what is more of a nightmare: realizing you are in fact the gender you were born as and wishing you hadn't done irreparable damage to yourself, or just accepting your perfectly healthy body for what it is.
What is the point of this statement? It is extremely rare for someone to go through a sex change operation, then realize "oh wait I was the other gender after all, I wish I didn't have this done".
And who cares if that unfortunate situation is more of a nightmare than living as a gender that is not your own? It has no relevance to anything being discussed.
In reality they can never have the body of the opposite gender so no matter how hard you try this "nightmare" can't be taken away with modern technology.
True, they can't have a 100% perfectly functional body of the opposite gender... but that isn't relevant. The choice is between a 90% perfect body, or one that's completely wrong.
According to your logic, if someone loses their leg they shouldn't get an artifical limb, because it'll never be an actual human leg.
According to a very close psychologist friend of mine this completely wrong, transgender people are one of the most messed up people alive...They are also extremely likely to commit suicide, and most of them are living through terrible depression...
You don't literally feel good in your own body, that is a serious condition, and people shouldn't have prejudices against such people because they live a very complicated and painful life as it is ( most of them, I'm sure there are some exceptions ).
In reality they can never have the body of the opposite gender so no matter how hard you try this "nightmare" can't be taken away with modern technology.
According to all the people in the thread with actual personal experience, it seems like surgery and hormonal therapy does indeed improve these peoples mental health and quality of life, so you are clearly wrong.
To be frank, the guy talked about body mutilation which is very different from surgery and hormonal therapy lol. so in a way he is right, at least what he was arguing, that mutilation is a horrible way to fix a problem, however, to actually attend a surgical procedure along with Hormone treatment is enough to physically transform someone from a man to a woman and it has helped allot of transgender people being able to live normal lives.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in the inviability of the body or the inviability of the soul (mind), because I really don't understand why the onus always seems to be on altering the body in order to satisfy the mind. Why not alter the mind in order to satisfy the body?
It seems a lot of people take the mind as being infallible, but I think it's important to understand the synergy between body and mind. Altering your body, through surgery and hormones, in order to maintain your mind is no different from altering your mind, through psychiatry/hormones/drugs, to suit your body.
I probably have an utterly bigoted perspective - I did live for a year with a lad who is keen on this stuff, always ranting about trans and asexuals on facebook, not sure if he is actually now "trans" or whatever but he's certainly come out as a homosexual - but there's absolutely nothing wrong with being effete as a man. Also, do "trans" tend to come from dysfunctional backgrounds?
And my final bigoted point - what effect would taking doses of testosterone have on a male who felt he should be a female?
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
In Ancient Greece (and many other cultures) pederasty was not exactly frowned upon and pederasty has become synonymous with pedophilia in the modern lexicon (even though it actually isn't in the DSM-IV sense).
On December 04 2012 23:24 3Form wrote: I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in the inviability of the body or the inviability of the soul (mind), because I really don't understand why the onus always seems to be on altering the body in order to satisfy the mind. Why not alter the mind in order to satisfy the body?
It seems a lot of people take the mind as being infallible, but I think it's important to understand the synergy between body and mind. Altering your body, through surgery and hormones, in order to maintain your mind is no different from altering your mind, through psychiatry/hormones/drugs, to suit your body.
I probably have an utterly bigoted perspective - I did live for a year with a lad who is keen on this stuff, always ranting about trans and asexuals on facebook, not sure if he is actually now "trans" or whatever but he's certainly come out as a homosexual - but there's absolutely nothing wrong with being effete as a man. Also, do "trans" tend to come from dysfunctional backgrounds?
And my final bigoted point - what effect would taking doses of testosterone have on a male who felt he should be a female?
Interesting points, especially the first 2 paragraphs. Altering the mind instead of the body seems to carry much less physical risks.
I can often understand why somebody does cosmetic surgery, bigger breasts, smaller nose etc. Media/Hollywood et al. try to sell us a certain beauty ideal, people who are far away from it tend to feel pressure to alter their appearance and go to plastic surgeons.
But I have to say that I cannot really understand people who go through a year long process, involving multiple surgeries, hormone therapies to completely change their gender. Boggles my mind to be honest. Our societies should try to teach the young ones to be more satisfied with their appearances again, instead of chasing unrealistic ideals.
Don't know if it is a good choice to put the transgender thing off the "psychological disorder" list. In the end I simply don't care enough to put some deep thoughts into it, but my first reaction is "not a smart choice" because I think it encourages people, who are on the brink, to undergo surgery and drastically change their bodies, which I don't think is a good idea.
I was never really thinking about this kind of stuff before coming to TL. But the amount of discussion about transgender people that is happening here, made me think about it more ... and I still don't get it. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way against letting people do whatever they want to with their bodies and identity and I don't really see any point in discriminating against transgender people (or, in making any difference, when it comes to thema at all), but I still do not understand anything about this.
The main point is that I do not feel as a man or woman. I just happen to have a penis, so I guess I am a man. But I really couldn't care less. I am attracted to women, so I am kinda glad that I do indeed have a penis, because it makes things much easier. But if I had a vagina instead, that would just make me a lesbian, I guess. I have absolutely no relation with my body and particularly no feeling towards my reproductive organs. Yes, they are fun to use, even more so when my wife is involved, but that is it.
I don't know if I have explained it well, but the whole point is that I am completely unable to comprehend how transgender people feel. Now I am a very uninvested person: if I don't understand something, but it does not hurt me, I am like "whatever". But I can certainly imagine, how with those people who feel the urge to push their opinions about everything, this kind of inability to understand can cause a lot of stress.
On December 04 2012 23:24 3Form wrote: I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in the inviability of the body or the inviability of the soul (mind), because I really don't understand why the onus always seems to be on altering the body in order to satisfy the mind. Why not alter the mind in order to satisfy the body?
It seems a lot of people take the mind as being infallible, but I think it's important to understand the synergy between body and mind. Altering your body, through surgery and hormones, in order to maintain your mind is no different from altering your mind, through psychiatry/hormones/drugs, to suit your body.
I probably have an utterly bigoted perspective - I did live for a year with a lad who is keen on this stuff, always ranting about trans and asexuals on facebook, not sure if he is actually now "trans" or whatever but he's certainly come out as a homosexual - but there's absolutely nothing wrong with being effete as a man. Also, do "trans" tend to come from dysfunctional backgrounds?
And my final bigoted point - what effect would taking doses of testosterone have on a male who felt he should be a female?
I normally stay out of topics like this, but I will say a few things that is on my mind from personal experience. Maybe it will help you look at it differently, maybe not.
I should first address that transsexual people don't have to come from dysfunctional backgrounds, and I don't think they are a higher percentage of transsexuals either. I don't really see a good reason as to why they should either, but maybe you could give a example.
The second thing is that "changing the mind" is pretty much is what happens all out through the transsexuals childhood. It is seldom that someone who was born male get raised as a female. Very often, close to always, you are raised depending on your sex when you are born, and that will be the view that is more or less "forced" on you. If you still doubt your gender after 10+ years, even throughout the years when you are as most susceptible for suggestions, then do you really think that a few times to a therapist would help? Maybe (very much maybe) with years and years of therapy and lots of medication it could help and you would then be "cured", but even then you might need to continue medication. I would think that a surgery and hormones would be a much better alternative, even though I don't know if you have to eat hormones for the rest of your life. If that is the case the different approaches would be similar in that regard. But I think hormones would be preferred.
With all that said, you must also remember that it is not enough that you just one day go out and say "no I don't want to be female, I want to be a male" and BAM you get approved to change gender (with operations and everything). You have to go through a lot of medical examination, checkups, interviews and so on. No one, hopefully, will or can change gender on a whim, there is much much more to it that what people realize.
One more thing. I think it is impossible to put your self in the position of a transsexual. I can not for my life imagine the feeling of being born as a female with a mind like a male, a female body with my mind. Maybe someone can, but I can't. And I would like everyone to stop make the "Think about if you where in that situation", "What if you where suddenly transformed to male/female" because frankly, you can't. I am not going to say I know how transsexual feels, because I don't. I do know that they are depressed and that it feels wrong for them. But that is only because I have been told so by actual transsexuals.
But with all that said. I think the last thing to ask is, does it hurt you? Is other people being transsexual a problem for you? And I don't mean that in the "I find it to be disgusting" kind of way. The answer to that is probably no. Unless you have a friend/family who is transsexual where it admittedly can hurt. I am not going to lecture anyone on such morals. This is already such a big fucking wall of text anyway....
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
DSM-IV's definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder requires that someone act upon it or that their sexual urges or fantasies cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.
It's not just having the sexual inclination towards prepubescent children. In the court of public opinion and the "popular" definition? "Pedophilia" is a nebulous concept that usually includes ephebophilia too and tends to be applied to general sexual attraction, but not in the psychological sense.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
DSM-IV's definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder requires that someone act upon it or that their sexual urges or fantasies cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.
It's not just having the sexual inclination towards prepubescent children. In the court of public opinion and the "popular" definition? "Pedophilia" is a nebulous concept that usually includes ephebophilia too and tends to be applied to general sexual attraction, but not in the psychological sense.
Sources vary slightly on exactly what is needed to qualify. The point I want to make is that you don't have to be raping children to be a pedophile, the same way you don't have to be a pedophile to rape children.
In general I find the whole concept, or at least how it is portrayed by trans people, to be almost regressive in respects gender equality. They draw serious lines in the sand of how a woman and a man act, think, dress, even their physical appearance, to justify changing themselves.
Ultimately I feel it's not a group of people who want to call attention to the issues regarding societal gender roles, it's just people who want to hop the fence to the other side. Which is fine, whatever, but then they have this really obnoxious way of accusing everyone who thinks otherwise a bigot.
Even the idea of "gender identity" is backwards to me considering all the work that goes into feminism and equality. If you like things that society says is for girls, you were supposed to be a girl? Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask is "why is it that only girls can like this in our society, isn't that dumb?" and then challenging by liking it anyway regardless of what gender you were born as.
It just seems like such a lazy, convenient attitude to peg your personality to gender. I don't think I am who I am because I am a man. I think I am who I am simply because this is the mind and personality I have. My penis rarely enters the equation (despite its ginormous size. It's huge)
If more and more people feel some incongruity with their gender and their mind, isn't that just evidence that the roles themselves are stupid? Isn't it ultimately a much more effective strategy to stop enforcing them, rather than tell everyone they have gender dysphoria and need surgery to fix it? Doesn't that in a way encourage the separation of genders to justify the act of altering the body to fit the mind? I can't wrap my head around it, it just seems so backwards to me.
On December 05 2012 00:19 nebula. wrote: i'm sorry but did they seriously change this now? in 2012? lol
Why are you surprised? As a swede you must know how influential feminism is. According to feminists, we're not born as men and women; it's all in the upbringing right? So people who are transgender are mentally unstable.. chromosomes and DNA be damned!
On December 05 2012 00:26 floor exercise wrote: In general I find the whole concept, or at least how it is portrayed by trans people, to be almost regressive in respects gender equality. They draw serious lines in the sand of how a woman and a man act, think, dress, even their physical appearance, to justify changing themselves.
Ultimately I feel it's not a group of people who want to call attention to the issues regarding societal gender roles, it's just people who want to hop the fence to the other side. Which is fine, whatever, but then they have this really obnoxious way of accusing everyone who thinks otherwise a bigot.
Even the idea of "gender identity" is backwards to me considering all the work that goes into feminism and equality. If you like things that society says is for girls, you were supposed to be a girl? Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask is "why is it that only girls can like this in our society, isn't that dumb?" and then challenging by liking it anyway regardless of what gender you were born as.
It just seems like such a lazy, convenient attitude to peg your personality to gender. I don't think I am who I am because I am a man. I think I am who I am simply because this is the mind and personality I have. My penis rarely enters the equation (despite its ginormous size. It's huge)
If more and more people feel some incongruity with their gender and their mind, isn't that just evidence that the roles themselves are stupid? Isn't it ultimately a much more effective strategy to stop enforcing them, rather than tell everyone they have gender dysphoria and need surgery to fix it? Doesn't that in a way encourage the separation of genders to justify the act of altering the body to fit the mind? I can't wrap my head around it, it just seems so backwards to me.
Or can it be.. can it be that this whole "we are what we say we are!" mentality is bullshit? That it's only one facet in a multifaceted reality? I'd do some research into the horrible consequences this attitude can have in regards to haphazardly choosing a gender for children who are born with disfigured sexual organs if I were you and I wanted to gain a healthy perspective. We don't get to choose the way we are. We can affect it more than what was thought possible a hundred years ago, sure, but we don't get to choose.
On December 05 2012 00:19 nebula. wrote: i'm sorry but did they seriously change this now? in 2012? lol
I don't get it? Why is this odd? Intersexuality haven't exactly been a hot topic before and changes like this normally comes slow. For the record Sweden still consider it a mental disorder to my knowledge.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
DSM-IV's definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder requires that someone act upon it or that their sexual urges or fantasies cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.
It's not just having the sexual inclination towards prepubescent children. In the court of public opinion and the "popular" definition? "Pedophilia" is a nebulous concept that usually includes ephebophilia too and tends to be applied to general sexual attraction, but not in the psychological sense.
Sources vary slightly on exactly what is needed to qualify. The point I want to make is that you don't have to be raping children to be a pedophile, the same way you don't have to be a pedophile to rape children.
And to add to that, the courts don't convict people on the basis that they find children sexually attractive as in their sexual orientation. It's the actual act, as in if you actually had sexually intercourse or in some shape or form have pictures which could be perceived as sexual.
The question regarding pedophilia as a definition however would be if its just merely is a summary of the sexual orientation, or that it also includes an actual act as well. That you are not really a pedophile unless you, with the sexual orientation cast aside, also have been in some sort of sexual activity as well.
On December 05 2012 00:19 nebula. wrote: i'm sorry but did they seriously change this now? in 2012? lol
Why are you surprised? As a swede you must know how influential feminism is. According to feminists, we're not born as men and women; it's all in the upbringing right? So people who are transgender are mentally unstable.. chromosomes and DNA be damned!
On December 05 2012 00:26 floor exercise wrote: In general I find the whole concept, or at least how it is portrayed by trans people, to be almost regressive in respects gender equality. They draw serious lines in the sand of how a woman and a man act, think, dress, even their physical appearance, to justify changing themselves.
Ultimately I feel it's not a group of people who want to call attention to the issues regarding societal gender roles, it's just people who want to hop the fence to the other side. Which is fine, whatever, but then they have this really obnoxious way of accusing everyone who thinks otherwise a bigot.
Even the idea of "gender identity" is backwards to me considering all the work that goes into feminism and equality. If you like things that society says is for girls, you were supposed to be a girl? Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask is "why is it that only girls can like this in our society, isn't that dumb?" and then challenging by liking it anyway regardless of what gender you were born as.
It just seems like such a lazy, convenient attitude to peg your personality to gender. I don't think I am who I am because I am a man. I think I am who I am simply because this is the mind and personality I have. My penis rarely enters the equation (despite its ginormous size. It's huge)
If more and more people feel some incongruity with their gender and their mind, isn't that just evidence that the roles themselves are stupid? Isn't it ultimately a much more effective strategy to stop enforcing them, rather than tell everyone they have gender dysphoria and need surgery to fix it? Doesn't that in a way encourage the separation of genders to justify the act of altering the body to fit the mind? I can't wrap my head around it, it just seems so backwards to me.
Or can it be.. can it be that this whole "we are what we say we are!" mentality is bullshit? That it's only one facet in a multifaceted reality? I'd do some research into the horrible consequences this attitude can have in regards to haphazardly choosing a gender for children who are born with disfigured sexual organs if I were you and I wanted to gain a healthy perspective. We don't get to choose the way we are. We can affect it more than what was thought possible a hundred years ago, sure, but we don't get to choose.
"we" This isn't about you, unless you're transsexual then this doesn't have anything to do with you. Transsexual people go through their lives in fear, doubt, and suffering because of their body. You were fortunate enough not to have a problem with your sex, but not everyone was that fortunate. Why does someone else's body matter so much to you and people like you (with your attitude towards the subject).
You're saying that you can't wrap your head around it, but that's not the point. You can't put your hands over your eyes and all of the sudden know what a blind person goes through. Yet you understand they have their own suffering. You don't need to understand the disorder to show sympathy. We aren't talking about changing YOUR body. We're talking about giving people better lives.
I'm transsexual, and if there was some pill I could take that would make me comfortable in my body I'd take it; but there isn't, so surgery and hormones is what I've got. And I'm incredibly relieved that those opportunities are there, because this isn't something you can just get over. For me, and many other people, it's transition or suicide. Speaking of which, the suicide rate for transsexual people is hovering just under 50% so think about that before you just brush off what we're going through.
On December 05 2012 00:19 nebula. wrote: i'm sorry but did they seriously change this now? in 2012? lol
Why are you surprised? As a swede you must know how influential feminism is. According to feminists, we're not born as men and women; it's all in the upbringing right? So people who are transgender are mentally unstable.. chromosomes and DNA be damned!
On December 05 2012 00:26 floor exercise wrote: In general I find the whole concept, or at least how it is portrayed by trans people, to be almost regressive in respects gender equality. They draw serious lines in the sand of how a woman and a man act, think, dress, even their physical appearance, to justify changing themselves.
Ultimately I feel it's not a group of people who want to call attention to the issues regarding societal gender roles, it's just people who want to hop the fence to the other side. Which is fine, whatever, but then they have this really obnoxious way of accusing everyone who thinks otherwise a bigot.
Even the idea of "gender identity" is backwards to me considering all the work that goes into feminism and equality. If you like things that society says is for girls, you were supposed to be a girl? Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask is "why is it that only girls can like this in our society, isn't that dumb?" and then challenging by liking it anyway regardless of what gender you were born as.
It just seems like such a lazy, convenient attitude to peg your personality to gender. I don't think I am who I am because I am a man. I think I am who I am simply because this is the mind and personality I have. My penis rarely enters the equation (despite its ginormous size. It's huge)
If more and more people feel some incongruity with their gender and their mind, isn't that just evidence that the roles themselves are stupid? Isn't it ultimately a much more effective strategy to stop enforcing them, rather than tell everyone they have gender dysphoria and need surgery to fix it? Doesn't that in a way encourage the separation of genders to justify the act of altering the body to fit the mind? I can't wrap my head around it, it just seems so backwards to me.
Or can it be.. can it be that this whole "we are what we say we are!" mentality is bullshit? That it's only one facet in a multifaceted reality? I'd do some research into the horrible consequences this attitude can have in regards to haphazardly choosing a gender for children who are born with disfigured sexual organs if I were you and I wanted to gain a healthy perspective. We don't get to choose the way we are. We can affect it more than what was thought possible a hundred years ago, sure, but we don't get to choose.
"we" This isn't about you, unless you're transsexual then this doesn't have anything to do with you. Transsexual people go through their lives in fear, doubt, and suffering because of their body. You were fortunate enough not to have a problem with your sex, but not everyone was that fortunate. Why does someone else's body matter so much to you and people like you (with your attitude towards the subject).
You're saying that you can't wrap your head around it, but that's not the point. You can't put your hands over your eyes and all of the sudden know what a blind person goes through. Yet you understand they have their own suffering. You don't need to understand the disorder to show sympathy. We aren't talking about changing YOUR body. We're talking about giving people better lives.
I'm transsexual, and if there was some pill I could take that would make me comfortable in my body I'd take it; but there isn't, so surgery and hormones is what I've got. And I'm incredibly relieved that those opportunities are there, because this isn't something you can just get over. For me, and many other people, it's transition or suicide. Speaking of which, the suicide rate for transsexual people is hovering just under 50% so think about that before you just brush off what we're going through.
Which post are you responding to? Certainly not mine, so please don't quote it. I agree with everything you say...
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
DSM-IV's definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder requires that someone act upon it or that their sexual urges or fantasies cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.
It's not just having the sexual inclination towards prepubescent children. In the court of public opinion and the "popular" definition? "Pedophilia" is a nebulous concept that usually includes ephebophilia too and tends to be applied to general sexual attraction, but not in the psychological sense.
Sources vary slightly on exactly what is needed to qualify. The point I want to make is that you don't have to be raping children to be a pedophile, the same way you don't have to be a pedophile to rape children.
And to add to that, the courts don't convict people on the basis that they find children sexually attractive as in their sexual orientation. It's the actual act, as in if you actually had sexually intercourse or in some shape or form have pictures which could be perceived as sexual.
The question regarding pedophilia as a definition however would be if its just merely is a summary of the sexual orientation, or that it also includes an actual act as well. That you are not really a pedophile unless you, with the sexual orientation cast aside, also have been in some sort of sexual activity as well.
I was mostly pointing out that you can only be diagnosed with the mental disorder "pedophilia" if you act on those urges or it screws up your life. In that sense Fdez's point-removing pedophilia from the DSM-IV as a disorder-would only happen if they changed their definition or changed the name of what they currently call "pedophilia."
I mean, you should have something in the DSM-IV to reflect the problem of acting on sexual attraction to prepubescents or being so sexually attracted to prepubescents that it screws up your life; I don't think anyone would disagree that's a mental disorder.
You'll never nail down the common-law definition of the word because of the emotionally-charged nature of the topic.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
DSM-IV's definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder requires that someone act upon it or that their sexual urges or fantasies cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.
It's not just having the sexual inclination towards prepubescent children. In the court of public opinion and the "popular" definition? "Pedophilia" is a nebulous concept that usually includes ephebophilia too and tends to be applied to general sexual attraction, but not in the psychological sense.
Sources vary slightly on exactly what is needed to qualify. The point I want to make is that you don't have to be raping children to be a pedophile, the same way you don't have to be a pedophile to rape children.
And to add to that, the courts don't convict people on the basis that they find children sexually attractive as in their sexual orientation. It's the actual act, as in if you actually had sexually intercourse or in some shape or form have pictures which could be perceived as sexual.
The question regarding pedophilia as a definition however would be if its just merely is a summary of the sexual orientation, or that it also includes an actual act as well. That you are not really a pedophile unless you, with the sexual orientation cast aside, also have been in some sort of sexual activity as well.
I was mostly pointing out that you can only be diagnosed with the mental disorder "pedophilia" if you act on those urges or it screws up your life. In that sense Fdez's point-removing pedophilia from the DSM-IV as a disorder-would only happen if they changed their definition or changed the name of what they currently call "pedophilia."
I mean, you should have something in the DSM-IV to reflect the problem of acting on sexual attraction to prepubescents or being so sexually attracted to prepubescents that it screws up your life; I don't think anyone would disagree that's a mental disorder.
You'll never nail down the common-law definition of the word because of the emotionally-charged nature of the topic.
I think the problem is that people are talking about this in too broad terms, let's narrow it down to Disorder<Sexual disorders<Hypersexuality. Because that is what it really is if you can't control your sexual urges, which is a case of Hypersexuality, only it's aimed at children 13 or under.
seems like a political move by the APA considering there has been an increase in transgender persecution (no source, just opinion).
increased scrutiny in the courtroom most likely showed how things might get wacky when the prosecution or defense has the term "mental disorder" to fall back on.
also, this was needed in order to start the process of legislation regarding the rights of transgenders. although, it might hurt some transgenders in the shorterm who relied on the DSM definition of Gender Identity Disorder as a legal defense against discrimination.
ie) easier to win a case when you are arguing discrimination against a mentally ill person vs. socially awkward lifestyle choice.
personally im on the fence about this one. im all for gay rights, but transgender is a whole different bag of peanuts; with questions about how they should be treated before and after medical procedures in terms of participation in activities prescribed to either sex. ie) public bathrooms, sports, army, etc If it happened to be the case that medical technology allowed for a complete gender transfer, without noticeable differences; then i might think differently. However, that is not the case.
If it happened to be the case that medical technology allowed for a complete gender transfer, without noticeable differences; then i might think differently.
Well, as far as I know MtF will make you a complete female with the only thing missing being the ability to reproduce. I heard even the vagina can be constructed in such a way to have pleasurable sex.
Why is it that whenever there's a thread about sexuality it ALWAYS derails to pedophilia? I'm so tired of EVERY non heterosexual person being compared to a pedophile.
It's not relevant to the discussion and it's grossly offensive.
"The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health."
So the decision was made because of peoples feelings and not because of anything substantively different about our understanding of what it means to be a transgender person in a scientific sense...
Okay, I personally take no issue with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community. Whatever, live and let live. But why are we celebrating what is claimed to be the scientifically based writings of an organization being altered for non-scientific reasons? It's an admission that either 1) it's a simple attempt to alter the vernacular and has nothing to do with scientific findings but rather has a social agenda or 2) our organization is not subject to being intellectually rigorous and will make announcements on a whim.
At least try and maintain the facade of being an academically honest organization.
On December 05 2012 01:37 Kimaker wrote: "The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health."
So the decision was made because of peoples feelings and not because of anything substantively different about our understanding of what it means to be a transgender person in a scientific sense...
Okay, I personally take no issue with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community. Whatever, live and let live. But why are we celebrating what is claimed to be the scientifically based writings of an organization being altered for non-scientific reasons? It's an admission that either 1) it's a simple attempt to alter the vernacular and has nothing to do with scientific findings but rather has a social agenda or 2) our organization is not subject to being intellectually rigorous and will make announcements on a whim.
At least try and maintain the facade of being an academically honest organization.
The scientific reasons have been demonstrated LONG ago. Also, citing non scientific reasons doesn't exclude scientific reasons.
On December 05 2012 01:37 Kimaker wrote: "The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health."
So the decision was made because of peoples feelings and not because of anything substantively different about our understanding of what it means to be a transgender person in a scientific sense...
Okay, I personally take no issue with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community. Whatever, live and let live. But why are we celebrating what is claimed to be the scientifically based writings of an organization being altered for non-scientific reasons? It's an admission that either 1) it's a simple attempt to alter the vernacular and has nothing to do with scientific findings but rather has a social agenda or 2) our organization is not subject to being intellectually rigorous and will make announcements on a whim.
At least try and maintain the facade of being an academically honest organization.
The scientific reasons have been demonstrated LONG ago. Also, citing non scientific reasons doesn't exclude scientific reasons.
I suppose my complaint is that it has no place in what claims to be a scientific journal. This is the first I've really read on the topic and I assumed that there would be some sort of citation's within the text to backup the change.
Also, would you mind linking me a couple of those studies which demonstrated that? My curiosity on the topic has been piqued.
On December 05 2012 01:37 Kimaker wrote: "The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health."
So the decision was made because of peoples feelings and not because of anything substantively different about our understanding of what it means to be a transgender person in a scientific sense...
Okay, I personally take no issue with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community. Whatever, live and let live. But why are we celebrating what is claimed to be the scientifically based writings of an organization being altered for non-scientific reasons? It's an admission that either 1) it's a simple attempt to alter the vernacular and has nothing to do with scientific findings but rather has a social agenda or 2) our organization is not subject to being intellectually rigorous and will make announcements on a whim.
At least try and maintain the facade of being an academically honest organization.
The scientific reasons have been demonstrated LONG ago. Also, citing non scientific reasons doesn't exclude scientific reasons.
I suppose my complaint is that it has no place in what claims to be a scientific journal.
Well it absolutely does. Psychiatry is all about mental health. And if an incorrect label significantly damages the mental health of a population then of course psychiatrists would cite that damage as a reason for changing the label. Their failure to update their manual with what science has known for a long time has been a source of great duress for transgender people.
On December 05 2012 00:26 floor exercise wrote: In general I find the whole concept, or at least how it is portrayed by trans people, to be almost regressive in respects gender equality. They draw serious lines in the sand of how a woman and a man act, think, dress, even their physical appearance, to justify changing themselves.
Ultimately I feel it's not a group of people who want to call attention to the issues regarding societal gender roles, it's just people who want to hop the fence to the other side. Which is fine, whatever, but then they have this really obnoxious way of accusing everyone who thinks otherwise a bigot.
Even the idea of "gender identity" is backwards to me considering all the work that goes into feminism and equality. If you like things that society says is for girls, you were supposed to be a girl? Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask is "why is it that only girls can like this in our society, isn't that dumb?" and then challenging by liking it anyway regardless of what gender you were born as.
It just seems like such a lazy, convenient attitude to peg your personality to gender. I don't think I am who I am because I am a man. I think I am who I am simply because this is the mind and personality I have. My penis rarely enters the equation (despite its ginormous size. It's huge)
If more and more people feel some incongruity with their gender and their mind, isn't that just evidence that the roles themselves are stupid? Isn't it ultimately a much more effective strategy to stop enforcing them, rather than tell everyone they have gender dysphoria and need surgery to fix it? Doesn't that in a way encourage the separation of genders to justify the act of altering the body to fit the mind? I can't wrap my head around it, it just seems so backwards to me.
You seem to think we all do this because of society and gender roles, but it isn't that at all. We change our bodies because our minds don't match it, there is a disconnect between the two. I'd love to have been born comfortable in my own body but I wasn't. I was born male, raised male and told all my life I am male but I can distinctly remember since the age of 4 feeling that I am female. I wasn't able to explain those feelings until I got older, but the disconnect between mind and body was always there. It has caused me a lot of pain and unhappiness all my life.
What I want is to be happy with my body and have it match my mind. Thanks to modern medicine I have the ability to do that and for once in my life be comfortable with my body. None of this has to do with gender roles or liking what girls can do and wanting to be like them. I am a girl even if my body isn't. It doesn't define who I am, it is simply part of my life.
I can fully understand that the majority of people in the world will never understand what it feels to be transgender and that it is a confusing topic to talk about. But it makes me sad that what we feel is belittled because most people can't look past their own world and realize not everyone is the same as them.
It is however, fascinatingly clear that many people in this thread (and not of their own fault) do not understand transgender or gender dysphoria very well.
But one should describe it as - imagine you were trapped in the body of an opposite sex, and forced by society to live as that sex from now on. It would be a humiliating, depressing (and for many transgender) suicidal experience.
Hormone therapy is one of the miracles of modern medicine which has been shown to cure the symptoms that these people have and allow them to live normal, happy lives
On December 05 2012 01:37 Kimaker wrote: "The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health."
So the decision was made because of peoples feelings and not because of anything substantively different about our understanding of what it means to be a transgender person in a scientific sense...
Okay, I personally take no issue with the lifestyle choices of the LGBT community. Whatever, live and let live. But why are we celebrating what is claimed to be the scientifically based writings of an organization being altered for non-scientific reasons? It's an admission that either 1) it's a simple attempt to alter the vernacular and has nothing to do with scientific findings but rather has a social agenda or 2) our organization is not subject to being intellectually rigorous and will make announcements on a whim.
At least try and maintain the facade of being an academically honest organization.
The scientific reasons have been demonstrated LONG ago. Also, citing non scientific reasons doesn't exclude scientific reasons.
I suppose my complaint is that it has no place in what claims to be a scientific journal.
Well it absolutely does. Psychiatry is all about mental health. And if an incorrect label significantly damages the mental health of a population then of course psychiatrists would cite that damage as a reason for changing the label. Their failure to update their manual with what science has known for a long time has been a source of great duress for transgender people.
Well, I've been looking at a bunch of APA stuff from their site and I gotta tell ya...I'm sorry. I had the entire organization mischaracterized in my analysis, so everything I've been saying is moot. Sorry I wasted your time.
On December 04 2012 22:50 FdeZ wrote: I wonder what will happen if it gets proven that pedophilia is not a mental disorder.
It's not a matter of proving anything, it's all about what's socially acceptable or not. Pedophilia will never be socially acceptable hence it will forever be considered a disorder.
Pedophilia is sexual exploitation of another living human and will always be spat upon in a moral society.
This is inaccurate. Pedophilia is not exploitation of another living human being since it is just a sexual inclination. What the person actually does to children determines whether or not exploitation occurs.
My understanding is that people with pedophilia have no choice in the matter. Child rapists/molesters/etc do.
I was going to post this, but you did it for me. Thanks!
So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Edit: Also, transgender people don't imagine they have the physical characteristics of their "inner" gender. A male who feels he's a gal doesn't think he has boobs and a vagina. If that were the case we'd have a happy nutcase on our hands, not a depressed transgender guy. How can you not understand this?
According to the APA, psychological disorders are only such if they cause significant distress to the individual with the disorder. If the distress arises entirely from other people's bigotry and ignorance, then it's not the individual, but other people who are the problem. Part of solving that problem would thus be to remove labels with negative implications.
Psychiatry and clinical psychology diagnose and treat disorders of the brain and not other parts of the body. Substance abuse disorders, for example, are only psychological disorders if they impair an individual's regular functioning (e.g., employment, raising kids) and/or cause distress for the individual or harm to others. Binge drinking or other heavy substance use is obviously a health concern for the individual regardless of whether or not it is a psychological disorder, but there's nothing physically harmful about transgenderism. The only reason it's even an issue is because of people's intolerance. That being said, with the removal of this categorization, transgendered individuals can still seek treatment for depression or anxiety resulting from discrimination.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
Well there's that whole "different species" thing which you seem to be overlooking.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
I just edited my reply, but I'll post it here as well so you don't miss it:
Transgender people don't imagine they have the physical characteristics of their "inner" gender. A male who feels he's a gal doesn't think he has boobs and a vagina, like your crazy cat person. If that were the case we'd have a happy nutcase on our hands, not a depressed transgender guy.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Also, if thinking you're a cat doesn't harm you in any way, then there's nothing wrong with thinking you're a cat.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
Well there's that whole "different species" thing which you seem to be overlooking.
How in this argument "different species" and "different gender" are different? They both constitute the same thing: a state which one can not achieve, as he was not born in it, i. e. if you were born a human male, you can't become a human female or a cat.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Also, if thinking you're a cat doesn't harm you in any way, then there's nothing wrong with thinking you're a cat.
Are you saying transgender persons are faking it? They can simply choose to feel (well.. with therapy, to get over the horrible social construct..) like another gender? Or did their parents raise them poorly? Of course they were born with a gender identity..
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
On December 05 2012 01:48 BrTarolg wrote: It is however, fascinatingly clear that many people in this thread (and not of their own fault) do not understand transgender or gender dysphoria very well.
But one should describe it as - imagine you were trapped in the body of an opposite sex, and forced by society to live as that sex from now on. It would be a humiliating, depressing (and for many transgender) suicidal experience.
Hormone therapy is one of the miracles of modern medicine which has been shown to cure the symptoms that these people have and allow them to live normal, happy lives
I know that nobody reads anything I write, but I would like to point out that I touched upon that a page earlier.
This kind of posts shows another fascinating thing: that people who feel like a certain sex absolutely fail to understand that this is not a universal human trait. Because I imagine that and I don't see a problem with that. What do you even mean by "forced by society to live as that sex"? If you are really forced by society to live as your sex dictates you, I feel sorry for you - but your tag is "United Kingdom" and last time I checked, that was not a hardcore Muslim country or anything like that, so you are pretty much free to do anything regardles of your sex, aren't you?
Maybe my problem in imagining the tragedy of "being forced to live as a female" is that I don't really live like a male anyway - at least definitely not in the way anything you could call a "society" would like it.
It all comes back to the marvelous post by floor exercise, also on the previous page: once, we are fighting gender stereotypes, because we want a free an equal word, the next minute we are using them to justify transgenderism? That does not make any sense at all.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
Wait, if someone likes to do stereotypically "male" things, is not really uncomfortable with having a penis, is attracted to women, then how is it that they can say they're actually female inside?
I agree with the APA's move here, but it seems like the line is drawn simply because treating it as a mental disorder is no longer the most viable option since we have a physical treatment available and it becomes a matter of personal choice. Without that capability, I don't see why it wouldn't be classified as a mental disorder.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Because mental contruct can have tangible physical effects on people. It is the same reason why anorexia is an actual disease. At it's base is an utterly stupid mental construction, but some people are so manipulable that they actually take it so seriously that they develop an undeniable and life-threatening condition from it.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
You're right. You don't "become" a different gender. A Transgender person was born the gender with which they identify, it's their sex that's out of whack.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
Upon what basis do you make that assertion?
Were I raised differently, I would be a substantially different person, in both mind and body. Genetics (and the state of the mother's womb during gestation) have substantial effects on who a person becomes, but they are far from everything.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
I would really like someone to actually explain to me one day, how do they know this for sure. You have no idea how you think in the absence of society. You would probably never invent 99 % of the issues you are dealing with now in your life (whatever they are), because it would never cross your mind to even think about something so unpractical.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
You don't get paid to play video games and thus don't fit the definition of progamer. If you identify as a male, however, then you are a male according to yourself and whoever else will acknowledge you as one, because the criteria for gender categorization is behavioural and socially constructed to being with.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Also, if thinking you're a cat doesn't harm you in any way, then there's nothing wrong with thinking you're a cat.
Are you saying transgender persons are faking it? They can simply choose to feel (well.. with therapy, to get over the horrible social construct..) like another gender? Or did their parents raise them poorly? Of course they were born with a gender identity..
Just because something is socially constructed, doesn't mean it doesn't have any biological substrates. You can socially construct something based on your genetic predisposition. Gender is malleable and not fixed. There's ample evidence that people are socialized to fit gender roles.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
Upon what basis do you make that assertion?
Were I raised differently, I would be a substantially different person, in both mind and body. Genetics (and the state of the mother's womb during gestation) have substantial effects on who a person becomes, but they are far from everything.
Gender roles are socially constructed and I think you're confusing those with actual gender. They way you're raised determines what you think males and females are supposed to do or how they're supposed to behave. But you can behave any way you want and people can call you whatever they want, you'll still identify as a gender.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
Upon what basis do you make that assertion?
Were I raised differently, I would be a substantially different person, in both mind and body. Genetics (and the state of the mother's womb during gestation) have substantial effects on who a person becomes, but they are far from everything.
Well this whole transgender thing we're discussing seems to strengthen the argument that gender is far from a simple social construct.. The belief that it's a social construct and nothing else made doctors switch sexes of children with disfigured sex organs(just raise them as the sex we gave them!), with horrific consequences for those exposed to this insanity. Gender identity is NOT solely a social construct.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
You're right. You don't "become" a different gender. A Transgender person was born the gender with which they identify, it's their sex that's out of whack.
Allow me to correct myself, as I'm not a native english speaker (in my language gender=sex). The point of the analogy was to show that you cant become different species or different sex.
Why do you think identifying with different gender/sex (I can't understand the difference yet) than you were born is not a psychiatric disorder? By term psychiatric disorder I mean the problem is related to thinking/brain activity, not hormonal/sex organs.
Also, how's the gender and sex different? Is gender a mental construct(how one is associating oneself)?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
Didn't you just prove my point and explain why? A human female constitutes a uterus and therefore an ability to bear children, therefore, the transfer you were talking about isn't quite full, despite having some/many resemblances to the "target" sex/gender.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
Didn't you just prove my point and explain why? A human female constitutes a uterus and therefore an ability to bear children, therefore, the transfer you were talking about isn't quite full, despite having some/many resemblances to the "target" sex/gender.
So infertile people aren't considered female? What about an otherwise healthy woman who was just born without a uterus, is she also not female? What about women who have had hysterectomies, are they no longer female?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
Didn't you just prove my point and explain why? A human female constitutes a uterus and therefore an ability to bear children, therefore, the transfer you were talking about isn't quite full, despite having some/many resemblances to the "target" sex/gender.
So someone who is infertile is no longer a human female to you? If the can't produce kids they are no longer human? or are they no longer male/female? I'm saying you can be female without being able to produce kids, you don't agree with that?
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
Didn't you just prove my point and explain why? A human female constitutes a uterus and therefore an ability to bear children, therefore, the transfer you were talking about isn't quite full, despite having some/many resemblances to the "target" sex/gender.
If I understand things correctly, the most important change is the hormonal one. The surgery is more of a social thing, which of course can be very important as well!
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
There's a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is a socially constructed identity, whereas sex is just the physical aspects of the body resulting from XY or XX chromosomes.
Right. So why are we paying so much deference to a mental construct? If I identify as a professional gamer, TL is hardly obligated to treat me as one...
Gender is not a socially constructed identity. It is a self identification. In the absence of society, I would still identify as male.
Upon what basis do you make that assertion?
Were I raised differently, I would be a substantially different person, in both mind and body. Genetics (and the state of the mother's womb during gestation) have substantial effects on who a person becomes, but they are far from everything.
Well this whole transgender thing we're discussing seems to strengthen the argument that gender is far from a simple social construct.. The belief that it's a social construct and nothing else made doctors switch sexes of children with disfigured sex organs(just raise them as the sex we gave them!), with horrific consequences for those exposed to this insanity. Gender identity is NOT solely a social construct.
The definition of gender is a social construct (the categories with which we describe things that exist in reality). The physical basis for an individual's gender identity is not. David Reimer is the most prominent example of what you're referring to: the fact that individuals are genetically predisposed to have a gender identity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer. When something doesn't fit a constructed category (e.g., a sexually male individual identifying as a female), a lot of people believe it to be unhealthy or somehow wrong because it doesn't fit with the categories they're familiar with (e.g., gender = genitals).
Also, gender defined as behaviour is malleable, just not to the extent that cases of forced gender reassignment like that of David Reimer are. There's plenty of psychological research on gender role socialization that demonstrates that people develop gender roles. But this point that gendered behaviour isn't fixed is only tangentially related from the one I made in the previous paragraph, which is that categories like gender are arbitrary and thus cannot be used to diagnose transgendered people as unhealthy.
This doesn't sound quite right. I thought it was a mental disorder since they're born with a brain that doesn't match their body. I mean that doesn't mean they should be discriminated against, but...this leaves me scratching my head a little.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
On December 05 2012 02:49 Gustis wrote: So being a male human and thinking you are a male cat is a psychiatric disorder and being a male human and thinking you are a female human is not?
Could anyone explain why?
I understand we shouldn't discriminate anyone. However, I think we are not discriminating people with various psychiatric disorders, for example, do we hate on people that have major depressive disorder?
Are you honestly comparing the difference between a human and a cat, and a male and female human? Is that really what I'm reading here? Holy. Shit.
Why not? It was meant to show that they both are wanting to be/thinking of being something you are not.Similarly, as cat is not human, male is not a female. Why does my analogy fall short? Is it because it's almost possible to transition from male to female(as opposed to from human to cat)?
It is more about the differences then anything else. A human and a cat is so different that you can not compare them. A human can talk and make him/herself understood. A human and a cat just don't come close, so it is a bad example.
Well first of all, thanks for clarifying that there are more differences between cats and humans than males and females. I wasn't really trying to prove otherwise.
Second, you can compare them, as both are mammals, have hearts, brains etc - both are living creatures.
Third of all, what you said does not disprove what I'm trying to say. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't become either of those things: different gender AND different species.
No the point is that you don't understand. A male can vary well become a female because the difference is not that big as you make it out to be. Frankly a male to female change is so good at the moment that the only thing we can't do at the moment is to make the person a uterus. We can make a vagina that has the same feeling as a real one. (for both persons that is). A to change a female to a male however is a bit lacking at the moment but give it some time and I hope it will be fixed. And if you think about it that is no different then a normal male or female who is infertile. Have I cleared it up know why that is a bad comparison?
Although we're kind of bogged down in details, it sounds like a valid point. We'd classify a human thinking they're a cat or a chimpanzee or even something fictional, like an elf, as having a disorder - but if we had the capability to easily change their physiology to match that of their mind then would we still classify it as one? It seems like being transgender is no longer a disorder because we can give these people what they want and not have to try to alter their minds to fit their body.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender Though this is where definition becomes very troublesome, because technically "female" is a sexual determination, but in use, it performs the role of a gender assignment.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Yes.......that is what I said?
Ah. Sorta...you said they're different but I'm arguing gender is just as internal as sex and isn't really constructed at all.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
Well, a big part of the deconstruction of gender labels deals with returning self-identicative agency to the individual, so ultimately, the propriety of a label relies somewhat upon the determination of the person in question.
And to Klondikebar, I think I agree with you, so long as you are arguing that humans inherently seek out self-identification in a general sense rather than in a sexually deterministic fashion.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
You just be glad you don't wake up tomorrow and find out you're in a woman's body.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action.
if you can find a trans person who thinks it's normal to chop dicks off, i will give you a cookie.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
Well, a big part of the deconstruction of gender labels deals with returning self-identicative agency to the individual, so ultimately, the propriety of a label relies somewhat upon the determination of the person in question.
Hmm, okay. Mind commenting on this?
Wait, if someone likes to do stereotypically "male" things, is not really uncomfortable with having a penis, is attracted to women, then how is it that they can say they're actually female inside?
Is it just that they want to be referred to as female?
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
It is "normal" to be disgusted because most people are. No one is forcing you not to be. But it's also normal to point out that your disgust is stupid. If the mods want to ban people for stupidity, I don't see an issue.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
Well, a big part of the deconstruction of gender labels deals with returning self-identicative agency to the individual, so ultimately, the propriety of a label relies somewhat upon the determination of the person in question.
Wait, if someone likes to do stereotypically "male" things, is not really uncomfortable with having a penis, is attracted to women, then how is it that they can say they're actually female inside?
Is it just that they want to be referred to as female?
More or less. Hmm, let me put it into different words. Throughout the bulk of our organized, civilized history, we applied the "talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a duck" philosophy to the application of gender labels; however, it has become increasingly clear that the "feeling" of a gender and the typical sexual indicators of gender are not as closely linked as we once thought (and previously, they were considered undivorceable). In other words, humans aren't ducks
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
You just be glad you don't wake up tomorrow and find out you're in a woman's body.
That's irrelevant. People don't become transgender because their body was suddenly swapped with a different one overnight.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
They don't ban people for having opinions, they ban people for being hurtful and ignorant.
I am just going to come out right now: I'm a 17-year-old trans girl, and nobody I know is disgusted by my appearance, most of them can't even "tell" that I'm transgender. So, not only are you openly criticizing the appearances of real people on the Internet, you're displaying your ignorance of the topic.
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
behavior changes with hormones (among other things). human beings were acting a certain way before they could articulate it. or, labels were already there before people learned to utter them.
Edit: you're arguing about why would i call a tree a tree, or i don't get it. in the end it doesn't really mater how you call it but you have to call it something 'cause its already there/it exists.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
You just be glad you don't wake up tomorrow and find out you're in a woman's body.
That's irrelevant. People don't become transgender because their body was suddenly swapped with a different one overnight.
It's not irrelevant. I am merely illustrating how it must feel to be transgender.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
behavior changes with hormones (among other things). human beings were acting a certain way before they could articulate it. or, labels were already there before people learned to utter them.
Edit: you're arguing about why would i call a tree a tree, or i don't get it. in the end it doesn't really mater how you call it but you have to call it something 'cause its already there/it exists.
No, this has nothing to do with trees, as trees play no active role in their own identification. Like I've already said, a major component of gender deconstruction is the idea individuals have the right to be labeled in accordance with their own gender identification or lack there of, not in strict adherence to outdated concepts of female and male appearance. If a person with a penis feels like a woman and wants to be referred to as such, that is their right, something previously considered taboo.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
You just be glad you don't wake up tomorrow and find out you're in a woman's body.
That's irrelevant. People don't become transgender because their body was suddenly swapped with a different one overnight.
It's not irrelevant. I am merely illustrating how it must feel to be transgender.
Um, to be swapped into a stranger's (or a friend's) body overnight is almost certainly not the same as growing up with body dysmorphia. We can't know for sure because nobody can actually be swapped into another's body, but the feelings are not identical in both cases (one is generally a gradual realization, one an instantaneous change, one a radical instantaneous appearance change, one no appearance change at all).
The differences in treatment in fiction illustrate this fairly well, though that's obviously fiction.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote: [quote] Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
Well, a big part of the deconstruction of gender labels deals with returning self-identicative agency to the individual, so ultimately, the propriety of a label relies somewhat upon the determination of the person in question.
Hmm, okay. Mind commenting on this?
Wait, if someone likes to do stereotypically "male" things, is not really uncomfortable with having a penis, is attracted to women, then how is it that they can say they're actually female inside?
Is it just that they want to be referred to as female?
More or less. Hmm, let me put it into different words. Throughout the bulk of our organized, civilized history, we applied the "talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a duck" philosophy to the application of gender labels; however, it has become increasingly clear that the "feeling" of a gender and the typical sexual indicators of gender are not as closely linked as we once thought (and previously, they were considered undivorceable). In other words, humans aren't ducks
Alright. Happy 3000th, by the way :D
I hate to bring up the "guy who thinks he's a cat" thing again, but I'd really like it cleared up. So: is feeling like you were supposed to be a cat a disorder? Assuming the answer is yes, if there was a viable method of turning someone into a cat without affecting their mind, would it still be a disorder? (Assuming yes), is it because someone who calls themselves "female" actually has the mind of a female, whereas someone who calls themselves a "cat" actually has the mind of a human that only thinks they're a cat? If that's the case, is there a way to distinguish between a human mind that actually is female versus a human mind that merely thinks they are in the way someone would think they're a cat?
I have no idea if you're a psychologist so that might be beyond the scope of your expertise.
On December 04 2012 23:43 AngryMag wrote: But I have to say that I cannot really understand people who go through a year long process, involving multiple surgeries, hormone therapies to completely change their gender. Boggles my mind to be honest. Our societies should try to teach the young ones to be more satisfied with their appearances again, instead of chasing unrealistic ideals.
Don't know if it is a good choice to put the transgender thing off the "psychological disorder" list. In the end I simply don't care enough to put some deep thoughts into it, but my first reaction is "not a smart choice" because I think it encourages people, who are on the brink, to undergo surgery and drastically change their bodies, which I don't think is a good idea.
Even as someone who supports people getting these surgeries, I'll admit that I can't understand it myself. I would not want to have a woman's body (other than the "lol rofl I'd play with my boobs all day" factor, which would get old after a short while)... but I think I would accept living that way before I'd get surgery to change things.
But here's the thing- what we think doesn't matter. It's about what the transgender person thinks. They clearly feel an extreme need to change their bodies, to the point where suicide starts looking appealing if they aren't allowed to do it. If these surgeries truly improve the quality of their life... who are we to say they shouldn't do it?
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
They don't ban people for having opinions, they ban people for being hurtful and ignorant.
I am just going to come out right now: I'm a 17-year-old trans girl, and nobody I know is disgusted by my appearance, most of them can't even "tell" that I'm transgender. So, not only are you openly criticizing the appearances of real people on the Internet, you're displaying your ignorance of the topic.
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
I'm sorry i offended you, didn't realize anyone gives a shit about what others have to say on the internet, especially when they are talking in a general sense. Glad you found people that accept and embrace you for who you truly are, if you were born in my home country, you would have a very hard time for sure heh. I may call it ignorance, but my argument is, why should i bother trying to understand you when i don't care to know you. I don't impose on others that they should try to have a deep understanding of me as a person, so why the double standard?
Whenever i see a hot topic about homosexuals, transsexuals and some other variation, the general feeling i get is that most of the people who will comment will have to be very careful, treading on thin ice, not to say something hurtful towards said minorities. This, to me is a form of attention whoring + playing the victim + overly sensible combination, which i don't particularly like. You want to be treated like the rest of us, but you never skip a beat in pointing out whenever someone says something inappropriate according to your moral values. Very clever in a way, forcing the rest of the population in reacting to your needs.
Don't know why but i have an urge to affiliate myself to the republican party all of a sudden.
This doesn't sound quite right. I thought it was a mental disorder since they're born with a brain that doesn't match their body. I mean that doesn't mean they should be discriminated against, but...this leaves me scratching my head a little.
Am I just being stupid again?
To call it a disorder is to deny their gender identity (you only think you are X because you have a mental disorder). It means that "cures" would focus on convincing these people to live as the gender they were assigned at birth. Gender is not a question of what is in between your legs so its not matter of "brain doesn't match their body" its that their body makes it difficult for them to live as the gender they identify as, both because of societal norms and because of the internal trauma it causes them (most guys want a penis and vice versa). Now treatment for individuals with gender dysphoria will focus on helping them to live comfortably as a member of the gender that they identify with.
On December 05 2012 04:56 starfries wrote:If that's the case, is there a way to distinguish between a human mind that actually is female versus a human mind that merely thinks they are in the way someone would think they're a cat?
Yes, it has been determined in multiple neurological studies that the brains of trans women are more akin to the brains of cis women than the brains of cis men, regardless of sexual orientation. There have been similar findings for trans men, as well.
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
Sadly people like him form the majority of the world.
People who would rather deprive someone of their happiness than stop being stupid and try to understand the issue.
Exactly. Look at his all-too-common view of the issue... "don't know, don't wanna know, just keep those "others" away from me."
Comparable to a racist seeing a black person or a Jesus freak seeing a Muslim woman in a burqa, he sees a transgender person as a lower class of human that doesn't deserve respect and isn't worth thinking about. It's just "stay away from me and I'll be fine"... and if he encounters one, I doubt pleasant words would be exchanged.
Sorry if this came off sounding harsh, I'm not trying to say he is as bad as a racist... it's just that being uneducated about a topic like this isn't great thing for society.
It was about time they took gender identity disorder off the list of mental disorders. The gender dysphoria itself (the severe emotional pain that comes from the incongruence between neuroanatomical gender and assigned sex that drives people to transition or suicide) is the mental disorder, just like chronic depression.
The thing is, what is a mental disorder? Is it bad? Can it lead to discrimination like the OP implied? The only mentally disorder that I could consider "bad" or at least worry me are the one that could make someone physically harm me (and not psychologically harm me, unless it is some sort of recognized harassment but i'm besides the point here...).
If I am a white dude and I think I am a black dude, am I like mentally ill? If I am a old man and I think I'm a child, am I mentally ill? If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill? If I think I am two persons at once (kind of schizophrenic), I am mentally ill? If I am not socially adapted (kind of autistic), am I mentally ill?
These are the questions I would ask myself and I'd like to think what society think of that, but that leads to the definition of mentally ill and its practical consequences. I will never discriminate the person I described in the second paragraph, but I will not consider them what they think they are (if a white man think he is black, I cannot consider him the same way, unless if I want to be polite with him).
I don't believe in the "you are what you think you are", like the gender is your self identification or your ethnic origin is your self identification ethnic origin or your age is your self identification age... You can do that is you want to please people or to help them feel better but I don't see other justifications.
That being said I believe in everyone doing and feeling the way he wants to. If you want to feel or to act like a woman, it's up to you.
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
Sadly people like him form the majority of the world.
People who would rather deprive someone of their happiness than stop being stupid and try to understand the issue.
Exactly. Look at his all-too-common view of the issue... "don't know, don't wanna know, just keep those "others" away from me."
Comparable to a racist seeing a black person or a Jesus freak seeing a Muslim woman in a burqa, he sees a transgender person as a lower class of human that doesn't deserve respect and isn't worth thinking about. It's just "stay away from me and I'll be fine"... and if he encounters one, I doubt pleasant words would be exchanged.
Sorry if this came off sounding harsh, I'm not trying to say he is as bad as a racist... it's just that being uneducated about a topic like this isn't great thing for society.
If it's all too common, then maybe did you stop to think that i'm in the right? As in the natural order of things. And how am i depriving them of happiness if i don't engage in contact with them? You're implying their happiness is directly correlated to my interactions with them. I'm sure they will be just fine without getting to know me, especially when they have you to embrace them with open arms.
On December 05 2012 04:26 Rhayader wrote: This is going to be very OT but: Why do so many of you care enough to engage in a complex and overlong discussion about transgenders and their problems? I personally never met one, and looking at the photos of the ones who comment below the article, i don't think i could keep a straight face if i would, let alone befriend them. So why do you all care so much about the problems of a very very niche segment of the population? Do you value being progressive and open minded so much? And why are people getting banned for being disapproving? If it's deemed normal to chop your dick off because of a compulsive need, i think it's more than normal for feeling disgust towards people who would perform such an action. Would be nice of admins if they didn't try to streamline all the posters on this site towards pretty much the same liberal/PC viewpoints by banning everyone who feels otherwise.
They don't ban people for having opinions, they ban people for being hurtful and ignorant.
I am just going to come out right now: I'm a 17-year-old trans girl, and nobody I know is disgusted by my appearance, most of them can't even "tell" that I'm transgender. So, not only are you openly criticizing the appearances of real people on the Internet, you're displaying your ignorance of the topic.
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
I'm sorry i offended you, didn't realize anyone gives a shit about what others have to say on the internet, especially when they are talking in a general sense. Glad you found people that accept and embrace you for who you truly are, if you were born in my home country, you would have a very hard time for sure heh. I may call it ignorance, but my argument is, why should i bother trying to understand you when i don't care to know you. I don't impose on others that they should try to have a deep understanding of me as a person, so why the double standard?
Whenever i see a hot topic about homosexuals, transsexuals and some other variation, the general feeling i get is that most of the people who will comment will have to be very careful, treading on thin ice, not to say something hurtful towards said minorities. This, to me is a form of attention whoring + playing the victim + overly sensible combination, which i don't particularly like. You want to be treated like the rest of us, but you never skip a beat in pointing out whenever someone says something inappropriate according to your moral values. Very clever in a way, forcing the rest of the population in reacting to your needs.
Don't know why but i have an urge to affiliate myself to the republican party all of a sudden.
What the fuck dude. You essentially come at this with the viewpoint that you out of hand think that transgendered people are ridiculous and unlikable and then you're surprised when people find that offensive? They aren't trying to force you to have a deep understanding of who they are, but they would like you to try to understand rudimentary facts about the difficulties of being transgendered in modern society so that you can STOP BEING SO BIGOTED. Knowing nothing about this person other than their gender identity you have already decided that you don't want to know them because of that alone.
Also calling advances in civil rights for LBGT people "attention whoring" is incredibly offensive. They want to be treated like normal people, but because of the way our society is currently oriented they are FORCED oftentimes to point out behaviour that they view is inappropriate because that behaviour (gay bashing etc) is often socially acceptable and even encouraged.
Its not that you don't know its that you refuse to learn. Its not that you don't help but that you refuse to care.
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
behavior changes with hormones (among other things). human beings were acting a certain way before they could articulate it. or, labels were already there before people learned to utter them.
Edit: you're arguing about why would i call a tree a tree, or i don't get it. in the end it doesn't really mater how you call it but you have to call it something 'cause its already there/it exists.
No, this has nothing to do with trees, as trees play no active role in their own identification. Like I've already said, a major component of gender deconstruction is the idea individuals have the right to be labeled in accordance with their own gender identification or lack there of, not in strict adherence to outdated concepts of female and male appearance.
i was talking about the root of the issue or the place it all started so to speak, but you talk about the definitions people made up for other different people, to put it somehow generally. those are only theoretical constructs with no innate value to the person whom you're categorizing as such. ps: i've no dea how rights fit into all of this. legal rights?, to be called "names"?.
If a person with a penis feels like a woman and wants to be referred to as such, that is their right, something previously considered taboo.
would that mean that before i could address to someone, anyone, i should skip past the appearances and straight up ask them if they desire to be talked to as if he/she was feeling the other way arround?. sounds like a lot of hassle just for ... theory sake. besides, what you said was not taboo because people didnt referr to them as they would feel like, gender wise, it was taboo because they were how they were, physically.
from where i'm sitting you're arguing semantics and think that being in the right category will make transgender people fell ... normal?.
On December 05 2012 04:56 starfries wrote:If that's the case, is there a way to distinguish between a human mind that actually is female versus a human mind that merely thinks they are in the way someone would think they're a cat?
Yes, it has been determined in multiple neurological studies that the brains of trans women are more akin to the brains of cis women than the brains of cis men, regardless of sexual orientation. There have been similar findings for trans men, as well.
I see. So there's a distinguishable difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? Do you know whether it's the constant act of thinking you're female that leads to changes in your brain structure, or is it that your brain is originally already that of a woman?
Good morning TL. Gonna respond to some questions/posts on the first six pages or so. I'm impressed that it's been pretty civil.
On December 04 2012 18:31 StarStrider wrote: Maybe someone could explain more clearly why I'm wrong, but even though I am the biggest proponent in the world (family member is trans), I fail to see how a mental disconnect like feeling like the gender of your conciousness doesn't match your body ISN'T a disorder qualifying for treatment under DSM? I mean, if we are offering a slough of medical treatments for this identity issue, then there should be a medical diagnosis based on a disorder. It is in no way the same to me as homosexuality, which isn't something that should even involve a doctor's input.
Hell, how can we diagnose a child or teen and allow them to begin social transition without defining it as a doctor diagnosed medical issue? How can we give hormone blockers for something that isn't even a disorder?
It actually still IS a disorder, or, rather, the dysphoria is.
See, originally, the DSMV called it Gender Identity Disorder, and defined it roughly as having a gender identity that doesn't match the body. This basically equated to the persons gender identity being what was the issue, not the depression onset (in most/all cases) by it.
Now, gender dysphoria is the disorder, which is the actually depression from this sex/gender mismatch.
To try to make an analogy, pretend that there was a disorder named War Veteran, and the symptoms of war veteran were PTSD. The change would make the disorder PTSD, not simply being a veteran of war. If that makes sense?
Essentially, the change is political in many ways, and may help getting insurance companies to actually provide for people with Gender Dysphoria, instead of declining treatment payment on the 'it's icky!' basis.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
Not quite--I would have still transitioned even if I didn't have any social interaction with others. Stigma from society is a huge aspect of depression (in fact, it has probably fucked me up more than the dysphoria itself) but it is only a side part of the reason transsexuals choose to transition.
On December 04 2012 17:03 ninini wrote: When I hear talk of not feeling like your gender, or that the brain is of the wrong gender, you lose me. Biologically, gender is pretty straightforward. Except for mutations, you are either male or female, no exceptions, and it's impossible to confuse the two.
Feminism tries to make male and female into the same thing, while the concept of transgender goes the other way, claiming that if you don't relate to your gender, you should change.
Neither of these concepts would exist if we just saw the genders for what they actually were, and got rid of the stereotypes. I don't see any reason why a man couldn't wear a dress, put on a lot of makeup, and overall act in a stereotypical female way, without having to question his gender. Why let stereotypes confuse you?
If someone feels like they don't belong to their gender, then maybe they should try redefining their ideas about what gender really is, rather than changing themselves. I just think it's sad, because you can't question your gender without questioning your existence.
Anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm not against transgenders. I'm not gonna decide what is allowed to do with your own body, but when someone says that a certain part of them feels like and qualifies them as the other gender, it doesn't make sense, and it shows a lack of understanding in genetics.
That's not entirely true--sex may be a male/female binary, but gender is way more fluid. Think about it, we have men that are very femmy, to very masculine, women who are very femmy to very masculine, and everywhere inbetween even to androgyny. It's not changing ones self to fit in with societies roles exclusively--hell, I still do mostly guy stuff/wear guyish clothes--but rather the satisfaction of having a body/brain alignment. Does that help explain it a bit better? If you have any more questions about it you can always PM me.
also @bolded, try not to use it as a noun. It'd be like saying "I'm not against blacks." Use it as an adjective--we're still people
On December 04 2012 17:09 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: Reading that quote in the OP, I'm wondering. If you're born a girl but you want to be a man, how do you know what it feels like to be a man? I mean, I've read about people who had a sexchange but later reverted it, which kind of implies that it was all in their head. Like, I have zero idea about what it would be like to be a woman.
I love this question, because the answer is usually pretty simple; you have no frame of reference of what it is like to be male or female except how you are, yes? The answer is that you know that something is innately wrong. So, in the case of an mtf, you might not know completely that you have a female gender, but you absolutely know you don't have a male one.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
do we have any evidence that they are not suffering from some sort of genetic/mental disorder?
They are suffering from a genetic disorder. Specifically, their neurology doesn't agree with their physiology. Since changing neurology is difficult if not impossible (and even if it is possible, it would effectively change who the person is), changing physiology to match the neurology is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
does the research suggest that sex-changes (don't know the actual medical term) are the best treatment?
Yes, it shows a significant decrease in suicide rates.
It likely will affect neither availability nor price, nor insurance coverage in the short term.
Thanks for the reply. So, insurance covers this, or is it considered cosmetic? It would be a shame if it is, in fact, out of pocket.
In America it almost always is, unless you get really really lucky, or have a special plan that covers it (some govt-employee plans and university plans are just beginning to cover it!)
I'm about to pay out of pocket for it. It's pretty bullshit I have to go into debt for a medical reason that all of my doctors can immediately say is medically necessary. But that's stigma for ya.
On December 04 2012 16:08 tokicheese wrote: I think it's pretty clearly a mental "issue". It's not necessarily a negative thing but it is a product of your mind. I don't know enough about the DSM to say whether or not it should be included but imo it should. Someone who is distressed by something occurring in their mind that they cannot help imo is suffering from a mental disorder.
You're correct, and part of transsexuality is still being considered a mental disorder, so we can continue to treat individuals suffering! it's just the part of it that is labeled the disorder is being changed.
On December 04 2012 19:08 Thorakh wrote: It's not really hard to understand, people can be born with three arms, with no eyes, with congenital analgesia, etc. so why couldn't they be born with a wrong body?
But doesn't that mean that it's not a mental disorder but a body disorder? As in a physical handicap?
I'm kinda uneducated on this matter, but how advanced is gender/sex (sorry! I don't know which one it is) reassignment surgery?
MTF: Most doctors use a modified version of penile inversion. Much sensitivity is still intact, and in most cases sexual function is retained (ie; ability to orgasm.) In most cases there will be no self-lubrication (some studies have shown that over time the tissue changes into a neo-mucus membrane tissue... inconclusive) and dilation of the neo-vagina is necessary to retain depth (aka; sticking a resin tube into yourself 3+ times a day for the first 6 months of surgery, then once a day for the rest of your life.)
There is talk of using a new form of grafting, involving a cheek-tissue swap that would both self-lubricate and prevent need for dilation
FTM: Not entirely up on the details, but it's way less refined.
In reality they can never have the body of the opposite gender so no matter how hard you try this "nightmare" can't be taken away with modern technology.
According to all the people in the thread with actual personal experience, it seems like surgery and hormonal therapy does indeed improve these peoples mental health and quality of life, so you are clearly wrong.
^^^ Literally the bottom line.
On December 04 2012 22:11 bOneSeven wrote: According to a very close psychologist friend of mine this completely wrong, transgender people are one of the most messed up people alive...They are also extremely likely to commit suicide, and most of them are living through terrible depression...
You don't literally feel good in your own body, that is a serious condition, and people shouldn't have prejudices against such people because they live a very complicated and painful life as it is ( most of them, I'm sure there are some exceptions ).
Nah, I agree, we are pretty fucked up, and we have something like a 50% suicide rate.
However, the depression part of it is still considered a disorder--as it should be. Because it needs to be treated. I think a ton of people are missing that part of this lol.
Basically, what the APA is saying is there's nothing innately wrong about being transsexual--but if you have the usually associated dysphoria, then that IS an issue that should be treated.
On December 04 2012 23:24 3Form wrote: Why not alter the mind in order to satisfy the body?
It has been tried, and appears to have never reached a credible positive outcome (in most cases the patient just blows their brains out.) Altering the body is much more practical, and leads to a fulfilling outcome for most individuals.
On December 04 2012 23:24 3Form wrote: And my final bigoted point - what effect would taking doses of testosterone have on a male who felt he should be a female?
Well, an MtF already produces testosterone... but any cases of further dosage just leads to further depression.
Oddly enough, most males with low testosterone feel depression, but trans women when put on androgen blockers to reduce testosterone feel more happy. I think that in and of itself speaks a lot of validity.
If it happened to be the case that medical technology allowed for a complete gender transfer, without noticeable differences; then i might think differently.
Well, as far as I know MtF will make you a complete female with the only thing missing being the ability to reproduce. I heard even the vagina can be constructed in such a way to have pleasurable sex.
The science technology is there to actually allow a trans woman to have a child... but ethical questions and lack of testing of procedures will likely cause that to never see fruit within my lifetime. I've long given up the hope of any way to have a child sans adoption.
On December 05 2012 05:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: People need to be a little more careful not to make contradicting arguments here...
You cannot simultaneously argue that gender is an invented social construct, and that gender is something identified with on a biological level. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either gender is purely a social construct, or a biological mechanism.
Obviously some aspects are purely social constructs... For example, the fact that women wear dresses is a purely social construct. Then you cannot argue that anyone feels a biological desire to wear a dress, ONLY that they feel a biological desire to be identified by others a certain way. Which means that in particular would be an interpersonal phenomenon and not an internal one. These are critical distinctions to make clear.
I think it's more correct to say; Gender identity is innate. Gender norms are a social construct.
On December 05 2012 04:15 Kaorix wrote: this thread is full of privileged fucks, mutilation? male to cat transitions? pedophile discussion? we're only trying to transition from non-functioning, depressed, suicidal humans, into functioning humans, that's the only transition here. why is it so hard to just accept that there are certain medical treatments that help a specific group of people? some of these medical treatments aren't even surgery, i know plenty of trans people who don't "mutilate" their body with surgery.
It's just a discussion. We're trying to understand. Why are you so offended?
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote: [quote] Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Where does genetics fall? Two X chromosomes makes you a female, but in which sense?
Two X chromosomes=Sex Female=Gender
So if you don't call someone "female" just because they have two X chromosomes, what label do you use? What if someone has two X chromosomes and a penis?
Well, a big part of the deconstruction of gender labels deals with returning self-identicative agency to the individual, so ultimately, the propriety of a label relies somewhat upon the determination of the person in question.
Hmm, okay. Mind commenting on this?
Wait, if someone likes to do stereotypically "male" things, is not really uncomfortable with having a penis, is attracted to women, then how is it that they can say they're actually female inside?
Is it just that they want to be referred to as female?
More or less. Hmm, let me put it into different words. Throughout the bulk of our organized, civilized history, we applied the "talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a duck" philosophy to the application of gender labels; however, it has become increasingly clear that the "feeling" of a gender and the typical sexual indicators of gender are not as closely linked as we once thought (and previously, they were considered undivorceable). In other words, humans aren't ducks
I don't know if I understand what you just said. If you feel a certain way, (and act like it), you are this way? It must be more complicated than that. I don't know if you heard about this but there was girl who was born (or abandoned as a baby) in a forest and raised by wolves and considered herself as a wolf. I don't know if she ever met another human being. She was genuinely feeling this way despite her human look/characteristics. Would you consider her a wolf?
People need to be a little more careful not to make contradicting arguments here...
You cannot simultaneously argue that gender is an invented social construct, and that gender is something identified with on a biological level. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either gender is purely a social construct, or a biological mechanism.
Obviously some aspects are purely social constructs... For example, the fact that women wear dresses is a purely social construct. Then you cannot argue that anyone feels a biological desire to wear a dress, ONLY that they feel a biological desire to be identified by others a certain way. Which means that in particular would be an interpersonal phenomenon and not an internal one. These are critical distinctions to make clear.
Regarding pronouns and "gender is not what is between your legs":
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people use 'male' and 'female' to refer to a person's sex, not to a person's self-identity. Likewise, the vast majority of people use 'tall' to refer to a person's height, not to whether or not that person feels tall.
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
But then, can this deconstruction of gender be applied to your age, your skin color, or your ethnicity? If not, why?
"... let alone befriend them." Come on man, do you not see why that is a horrible thing to say?
Sadly people like him form the majority of the world.
People who would rather deprive someone of their happiness than stop being stupid and try to understand the issue.
Exactly. Look at his all-too-common view of the issue... "don't know, don't wanna know, just keep those "others" away from me."
Comparable to a racist seeing a black person or a Jesus freak seeing a Muslim woman in a burqa, he sees a transgender person as a lower class of human that doesn't deserve respect and isn't worth thinking about. It's just "stay away from me and I'll be fine"... and if he encounters one, I doubt pleasant words would be exchanged.
Sorry if this came off sounding harsh, I'm not trying to say he is as bad as a racist... it's just that being uneducated about a topic like this isn't great thing for society.
If it's all too common, then maybe did you stop to think that i'm in the right? As in the natural order of things. And how am i depriving them of happiness if i don't engage in contact with them? You're implying their happiness is directly correlated to my interactions with them. I'm sure they will be just fine without getting to know me, especially when they have you to embrace them with open arms.
Ok then, I'll let my Swedish compatriots know that it's ok to be rude and dismissive of immigrants because it's "the natural order". They won't mind since they don't need our understanding or compassion. Bbl, closing down the borders!
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
Ohh I remember you! You're the kid who said that racism is only racism as long as the the majority uses it to marginalize a minority. Ohh your logic is always the best to see! I'm glad you are still taking it upon yourself to argue your erroneous poorly-constructed points of view.
On December 05 2012 05:19 packrat386 wrote:Also calling advances in civil rights for LBGT people "attention whoring" is incredibly offensive. They want to be treated like normal people, but because of the way our society is currently oriented they are FORCED oftentimes to point out behaviour that they view is inappropriate because that behaviour (gay bashing etc) is often socially acceptable and even encouraged.
Members of the LGBT community are obtuse and bigoted about of lot of things just like everybody else. Often in Paris do I meet homosexuals who still treat other members of their community with stereotypes (someone used butch in this very thread). Civil rights has to come for everyone, not just the one who fights for it. And the known part of the community are people like FEMEN who are more or less "attention-whores". Whereas this attention seeking is justified is another topic but their actions is definitely meant to capture attention from the public and mainstream media.
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
But then, can this deconstruction of gender be applied to your age, your skin color, or your ethnicity? If not, why?
Well, things like your age and skin color are concretely true, so you can't say you're 18 if you were born 30 years ago. The difference is that you can't simply look at someone (or their genes) and tell what gender they are. At birth they are assigned a gender based on their genitalia, but that is not always a good classification. Someone can be female and have a penis whereas they could not be 18 and be born 30 years ago. Once again you conflate sex and gender, which simple isn't the case.
On December 05 2012 05:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: People need to be a little more careful not to make contradicting arguments here...
You cannot simultaneously argue that gender is an invented social construct, and that gender is something identified with on a biological level. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either gender is purely a social construct, or a biological mechanism.
Obviously some aspects are purely social constructs... For example, the fact that women wear dresses is a purely social construct. Then you cannot argue that anyone feels a biological desire to wear a dress, ONLY that they feel a biological desire to be identified by others a certain way. Which means that in particular would be an interpersonal phenomenon and not an internal one. These are critical distinctions to make clear.
As a trans girl, I have no problem with this point of view. While I identify as a woman and would like to be perceived as such, I have no interest in conforming to specific gender roles, and I have no strong desire to wear dresses.
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
But then, can this deconstruction of gender be applied to your age, your skin color, or your ethnicity? If not, why?
Skin color and ethnicity are certainly ripe for some very productive deconstructions (I don't really know anything about people who feel a different age than they currently are). I mean, to get anecdotal about things, I personally do not appear hispanic really at all, as I'm tall, broad shouldered, and fairly light skinned. However, I spent a great amount of my childhood traveling to Mexico and living with a variety of my Hispanic relatives, and have more or less grown up "Hispanic" in many ways. Personally, though, I am very tired of identity study, but I still think it can help a fair number of people become more comfortable with what oftentimes becomes a disconnect between "apparent identity" and "self-perceived identity".
It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form nor does it harm anyone (and therefore cannot be morally wrong).
On December 05 2012 05:47 Thorakh wrote: It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form.
(obviously the same applies for FtM)
I don't think anyone is talking about denying people the right to have sex reassignment surgery. At least I hope not. By denying, do you mean not wanting the government to pay for it or something?
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
But then, can this deconstruction of gender be applied to your age, your skin color, or your ethnicity? If not, why?
Well, things like your age and skin color are concretely true, so you can't say you're 18 if you were born 30 years ago. The difference is that you can't simply look at someone (or their genes) and tell what gender they are. At birth they are assigned a gender based on their genitalia, but that is not always a good classification. Someone can be female and have a penis whereas they could not be 18 and be born 30 years ago. Once again you conflate sex and gender, which simple isn't the case.
You are doing the same exact thing than him, you shouldn't act like this. Here is a more correct version of what you wrote :
At birth they are assigned a sex based on their genitalia, but that is not always what they feel about themselves. Someone could consider themselves of the women gender and have a penis (biological sex).
PS : Just because you are a member of the LGBT community doesn't mean you know the underlying theory of gender and its relation to psychology, biology and neurology.
Hi there. I myself identify as a trans person and I'd just like to clear up a lot of misconceptions in this thread. First, some vocabulary:
Transgender: umbrella term for people who do not line up with the gender binary as it is usually conceived. Includes transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, transvestite, agender, etc.
Transsexual: Someone whose gender does not align with their sex.
Cissexual: Someone whose gender does align with their sex.
Ok, so that being said, one of the major problems in this thread is that there is a huge prevalence of cissexual privilege that most are not even aware they have. It's completely impossible to appeal to reason with you when you don't recognize your privilege, so hopefully, I can make you more aware. The examples in this thread so far (imagine if you were born a girl but still had the same mind) will not and cannot work, for the cissexual assumes that if he were born a girl, he would simply identify as a girl. Thus, a different sort of mindset is required.
Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
This is your cissexual privilege. You have never been questioned about your gender identity. You have never had to defend yourself as being who you really are. But one does not have to have a great deal of imagination to see how this could happen: Perhaps you got into a car accident, and it damaged your genitalia such that you no longer produced testosterone. And perhaps your vocal chords got damaged so you no longer have a deep voice. Indeed, people would question who you are. But you KNOW you're a guy, because you always have been. And no matter how much people treat you as female, do you really think they could someone socially mesmerize you into identifying as being female?
The other point I want to make is that there is a clear error in both gender constructionist and gender essentialist views, and neither are compatible with transsexualism. Gender constructionist says: There's no such thing as a "real" gender - we just made this stuff up. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a transsexual, because there's nothing innately female or male in the world, just stuff we made up. So there's no reason for you to want to change your body other than social norms.
Gender constructionists must ignore decades of research on intersexed individuals. Scientists thought with intersex, if you just remove one of the "defective"genitals, you could raise the child as if they were the sex (and gender) of your choice. Turns out, this was a fucking disaster. It was wrong. Intersexed individuals often end up discovering their condition and wish to revert to the other sex.
Gender essentialists, on the other hand - those that believe that we are "born" with genders - are equally wrong. We clearly have a wide variety of gender preferences and roles in society, from tomboyish women to effeminate men. And clearly to some degree these traits can be influenced by our upbringing. Female mannerisms such as occupying little space, having a weak handshake, walking in a particular way, wearing makeup, being "pretty" - are not necessary to being a woman. Nor is being a strong alpha male necessary to being a man.
It's high time we stopped pretending that gender is either completely constructed or essential to our biology. Gender and sexuality is fluid, it occupies far more than a mere binary. It's both constructed and biological, just like intelligence, work ethic, social skills, etc. We have innate tendencies that we tend to go towards, that can be enhanced or downplayed based on our in environments.
A final point, specifically to the people that say we must identify men and women based on their chromosomes or their genitalia: This completely ignores the fact that whether we are treated as a man or woman has absolutely nothing to do with these things. No one walks around with their birth certificates, and I am willing to bet that not a single fucking person in this thread has ever had their chromosomes examined (and if they did, they might get a surprising result, like xxy). Nor do we treat people as women or men based on their primary sexual characteristics (penis or vagina) at first glance. Rather, 99% of the reason we treat someone as a man or woman is based on an instantaneous evaluation of their secondary characteristics. To claim anything else is ad hoc reasoning applied after the fact.
Also, being transgender is not a mental disorder in my opinion because this implies that transsexuals need "therapy." The reality, though, is that the existence of the strict requirements for medications and surgeries to transition is more about protecting cissexual people that might be mistaken (perhaps .00000001% of the population) rather than helping people who actually are transsexual. That's why it's called a disorder - to protect cissexuals.
On December 05 2012 05:47 Thorakh wrote: It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form.
(obviously the same applies for FtM)
I don't think anyone is talking about denying people the right to have sex reassignment surgery. At least I hope not. By denying, do you mean not wanting the government to pay for it or something?
No, that's an entirely different discussion of course.
On December 05 2012 05:34 Severedevil wrote: Regarding pronouns and "gender is not what is between your legs":
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people use 'male' and 'female' to refer to a person's sex, not to a person's self-identity. Likewise, the vast majority of people use 'tall' to refer to a person's height, not to whether or not that person feels tall.
That would make a strong analogy if it were in any way aligned with reality. People use the concept of gender in their language all the time "A manly man" or "shes so femanine" "abit of a tom boy", the style of peoples clothes, sexuality (being gay is often considered to be demasculinising, particular if your the "reciever")
I could go on and on and on providing examples, but it should be fairly clear to anyone that gender as a concept means far far more in our society than simply your chromosomes//genitals.
On December 05 2012 05:47 Thorakh wrote: It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form nor does it harm anyone (and therefore cannot be morally wrong).
(obviously the same applies for FtM)
Pretty sure you should be using female pronouns, other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
I understand your intention with this example, but it's really a poor example. It is a very different experience to feel something since you were a child, and to suddenly wake up one day after years of experience and have things reversed on you. Our experiences do shape our expectations, desires, and responses to some degree.
Kinda find it amusing a lot of this argument comes from a MTF perspective, arguing about mutilation etc.
There are FTM transgenders too. Is that a form of mutilation as well when you take out removal of the penis? Or again, are you simply doing the "Hurr, this makes no sense and is WRONG" type of thinking. If something doesn't make sense to you, that's not entirely unnatural or uncommon.
Again, treat trans people exactly the same as other people, but another fun thought:
Remember puberty and the teenage years, how awkward that was? Determining your sense of self, your sexual orientation, social status, adapting to societal pressures etc? (Hell, some of you may still be going through this) Now realize that trans people need to go through that while dealing with an incorrect sex, then need to go through it again while undergoing transformations to fit into their more correct self, that aren't without their own side effects. Self-actualization twice, and it's not easy the first time, let alone having to do it again.
Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
I understand your intention with this example, but it's really a poor example. It is a very different experience to feel something since you were a child, and to suddenly wake up one day after years of experience and have things reversed on you. Our experiences do shape our expectations, desires, and responses to some degree.
This example isn't meant to show you what it's like to be a transsexual (I might as well be trying to show you what it's like to be "black" or "asian"). You misunderstand the intent. The intent is to make you aware of your cissexual privilege.
Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
I understand your intention with this example, but it's really a poor example. It is a very different experience to feel something since you were a child, and to suddenly wake up one day after years of experience and have things reversed on you. Our experiences do shape our expectations, desires, and responses to some degree.
This example isn't meant to show you what it's like to be a transsexual. You misunderstand the intent. The intent is to make you aware of your cissexual privilege.
It is the response to the privilege that matters though...
On December 05 2012 05:47 Thorakh wrote: It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form nor does it harm anyone (and therefore cannot be morally wrong).
(obviously the same applies for FtM)
You argument while well-meaning is narrow-minded. Of course, I am no one to forbid transsexual transition (nor do I want to) but it doesn't mean I should refrained to judge the actions of transsexuals based on my own personal philosophy. Philosophy is (or should) be a personal process about how you think people should live their life (id est something that applies in general)
On December 05 2012 05:53 shinosai wrote: Ok, so that being said, one of the major problems in this thread is that there is a huge prevalence of cissexual privilege that most are not even aware they have. It's completely impossible to appeal to reason with you when you don't recognize your privilege, so hopefully, I can make you more aware. The examples in this thread so far (imagine if you were born a girl but still had the same mind) will not and cannot work, for the cissexual assumes that if he were born a girl, he would simply identify as a girl. Thus, a different sort of mindset is required.
Ahh I wondered when the aggressive argument of "you are biased and privileged so you are unable to understand my situation" would make an appearance. It was foolish of me to think someone would not used that trope. I don't like to discuss with people who discriminate me based on who I am (even though they don't know what I think) while trying to defend their rights not to be treated like that. HYPOCRISY !
PS : That's why I said people from the LGBT community were as bigoted and obtuse as everyone else. I have to leave this thread before I go all emo and start shitting everything up. But the argument you used is pathetic and you should be ashamed.
Ahh I wondered when the aggressive argument of "you are biased and privileged so you are unable to understand my situation" would make an appearance. It was foolish of me to think someone would not used that trope. I don't like to discuss with people who discriminate me based on who I am (even though they don't know what I think) while trying to defend their rights not to be treated like that. HYPOCRISY !
Not a very good argument, since I was trying to make you recognize your privilege so that you could understand the situation. What you're doing is attacking a strawman.
You certainly CAN understand the situation (although you can never know what it's like to be a trans, anymore than knowing what it's like to be an octopus or an asian or a black - but that doesn't mean you can't have ANY understanding). Yes, you can understand. That's why I wrote that post.
edit: It should be added, though, that you cannot understand if you do not recognize your own frame of reference. Much like science is also limited in this sense (read Kuhn sometime to learn about how scientific science is)
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
behavior changes with hormones (among other things). human beings were acting a certain way before they could articulate it. or, labels were already there before people learned to utter them.
Edit: you're arguing about why would i call a tree a tree, or i don't get it. in the end it doesn't really mater how you call it but you have to call it something 'cause its already there/it exists.
No, this has nothing to do with trees, as trees play no active role in their own identification. Like I've already said, a major component of gender deconstruction is the idea individuals have the right to be labeled in accordance with their own gender identification or lack there of, not in strict adherence to outdated concepts of female and male appearance.
i was talking about the root of the issue or the place it all started so to speak, but you talk about the definitions people made up for other different people, to put it somehow generally. those are only theoretical constructs with no innate value to the person whom you're categorizing as such. ps: i've no dea how rights fit into all of this. legal rights?, to be called "names"?.
If a person with a penis feels like a woman and wants to be referred to as such, that is their right, something previously considered taboo.
would that mean that before i could address to someone, anyone, i should skip past the appearances and straight up ask them if they desire to be talked to as if he/she was feeling the other way arround?. sounds like a lot of hassle just for ... theory sake.
Last time I checked, striking up a conversation with someone generally doesn't require knowing their gender. Unless you're propositioning them for a sexual/romantic relationship, what you have to say should be appropriate whether they're male or female. And if it isn't... that's a personal problem you need to correct in general. You shouldn't speak significantly differently to men or women. So you shouldn't be needing to ask someone what their gender is either way.
Let's say you meet someone. This person looks more-or-less male; no noticeable breasts, their voice is borderline, and their hair is cut short. If you then refer to this person as "he", but the person corrects you and tells you that she's female... would you actually argue with them? Would you ask them to drop their pants on the spot and show proof of vagina? Or would you simply accept it, maybe apologize for the error, and move on?
How would this situation be any different if they actually had a penis at that moment? Unless of course you would be so crass as to ask them to drop trou and prove their sex.
On December 05 2012 06:08 Otolia wrote: Ahh I wondered when the aggressive argument of "you are biased and privileged so you are unable to understand my situation" would make an appearance. It was foolish of me to think someone would not used that trope. I don't like to discuss with people who discriminate me based on who I am (even though they don't know what I think) while trying to defend their rights not to be treated like that. HYPOCRISY !.
Lolwut? I do not know any trans people who specifically discriminate against cis people. Indeed, the majority of my friends and acquaintances are cisgender. Informing someone that they have privilege in a social dynamic is not discrimination. If somebody told me that I had white privilege or able-bodied privilege, I would recognize that as true, and I wouldn't feel discriminated against in the slightest. All of my cisgender friends recognize their cis privilege just as much as I do.
On December 05 2012 05:53 shinosai wrote: A final point, specifically to the people that say we must identify men and women based on their chromosomes or their genitalia: This completely ignores the fact that whether we are treated as a man or woman has absolutely nothing to do with these things. No one walks around with their birth certificates, and I am willing to bet that not a single fucking person in this thread has ever had their chromosomes examined (and if they did, they might get a surprising result, like xxy). Nor do we treat people as women or men based on their primary sexual characteristics (penis or vagina) at first glance. Rather, 99% of the reason we treat someone as a man or woman is based on an instantaneous evaluation of their secondary characteristics. To claim anything else is ad hoc reasoning applied after the fact.
We judge based on the information available. People rarely expose their genitals for confirmation. (However, if you drop your pants and waggle your dick, people will stop assuming your long hair, soft voice, and slight build mean you're a woman.)
On December 05 2012 06:19 NicolBolas wrote: Let's say you meet someone. This person looks more-or-less male; no noticeable breasts, their voice is borderline, and their hair is cut short. If you then refer to this person as "he", but the person corrects you and tells you that she's female... would you actually argue with them? Would you ask them to drop their pants on the spot and show proof of vagina? Or would you simply accept it, maybe apologize for the error, and move on?
You would likely assume that the person is telling the truth. When she tells you she's female, you revise your interpretation of her physical state.
How would this situation be any different if they actually had a penis at that moment?
It wouldn't much matter, but it would mean the person is question is deliberately misleading you. (Yes, even if that person uses gender pronouns to mean identity rather than sex. No one is so ignorant as to think that's universal terminology.)
I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
On December 05 2012 06:08 Otolia wrote: Ahh I wondered when the aggressive argument of "you are biased and privileged so you are unable to understand my situation" would make an appearance. It was foolish of me to think someone would not used that trope. I don't like to discuss with people who discriminate me based on who I am (even though they don't know what I think) while trying to defend their rights not to be treated like that. HYPOCRISY !.
Lolwut? I do not know any trans people who specifically discriminate against cis people. Indeed, the majority of my friends and acquaintances are cisgender. Informing someone that they have privilege in a social dynamic is not discrimination. If somebody told me that I had white privilege or able-bodied privilege, I would recognize that as true, and I wouldn't feel discriminated against in the slightest. All of my cisgender friends recognize their cis privilege just as much as I do.
I think his point is that often people use privilege to dismiss someone's statements or arguments, or to suggest they are naive, ignorant, what have you. I wouldn't call that discrimination though, just stereotyping or generalizing.
It wouldn't much matter, but it would mean the person is question is deliberately misleading you. (Yes, even if that person uses gender pronouns to mean identity rather than sex. No one is so ignorant as to think that's universal terminology.)
And if they had a neo-vagina (artifically constructed thru srs), would they still be misleading you?
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
Well, the problem is that eventually transgender people transition. And at this point their brain and genetics do align for the most part. So once we transition we don't have a "disorder" anymore. And we don't need therapy or anything like that, obviously.
As for the "normal" thing - again you have to kind of take into account your frame of reference. I don't even know what you mean by that word. Do you mean, outside of the majority? Because I know there are some super geniuses like Stephen Hawking that have very not "normal" brain activity in the sense that most people are of a rather average intelligence. So it can't be that. Perhaps you mean, "unnatural" - but well, I don't know what that means, either. It's a very vague and ambiguous term that's been used to attack the queer community, but it's not all that clear why something being "unnatural" should also have a negative ethical value attached to it.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Wait, good sir, you failed to take it the extra step, and ask if people who get Laser Eye Correction are mentally ill for wanting to surgically mutilate their body to match their belief of how it should work.
Totally would have made it into the perfect analogy.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
On December 05 2012 05:13 Thurken wrote: If I'm a male and I think I am a female, am I mentally ill?
Therein lies your confusion. A transwoman (classified as male at birth identifies as female) IS female, she just was born with a penis. Gender is not what is between your legs, and it isn't a matter of thinking you are something that you aren't. They are the gender they identify with, they just want other people to recognize them as such. How hard would it be to be a guy if you were treated like a girl everywhere you went based on your appearance. Not to mention that these individuals can become quite depressed because of the incongruence between their body and their identified gender. Calling it a disorder to deny their identity in the first place.
But then, can this deconstruction of gender be applied to your age, your skin color, or your ethnicity? If not, why?
Well, things like your age and skin color are concretely true, so you can't say you're 18 if you were born 30 years ago. The difference is that you can't simply look at someone (or their genes) and tell what gender they are. At birth they are assigned a gender based on their genitalia, but that is not always a good classification. Someone can be female and have a penis whereas they could not be 18 and be born 30 years ago. Once again you conflate sex and gender, which simple isn't the case.
You are doing the same exact thing than him, you shouldn't act like this. Here is a more correct version of what you wrote :
At birth they are assigned a sex based on their genitalia, but that is not always what they feel about themselves. Someone could consider themselves of the women gender and have a penis (biological sex).
PS : Just because you are a member of the LGBT community doesn't mean you know the underlying theory of gender and its relation to psychology, biology and neurology.
Sorry if I misstated something, but I can't tell the difference between your statement and mine. Pehaps you could explain more? Also when did I say I was a member of the LGBT community? All that I know about any kinds of underlying theory is stuff that has been explained to me by others that I have met on the internet. I don't claim to have some intimate knowledge of these things I'm just trying to explain them (in a basic way) as they were explained to me to help others understand.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
So... thought experiment question. If a cissexual female involuntarily has a penis constructed, and lived her life for the next several years... but had serious mental health problems with the penis... would you say it's a psychological problem, because the penis itself is not causing harm to her? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm genuinely curious. It seems like the answer is that yes, the penis is causing her psychological harm (not physical, assuming the surgery went ok without complication). But we would also say she'd be perfectly right to want to get it removed, wouldn't we?
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response.
You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically?
This thread is starting get pretty bad/repetitive. Perhaps the OP could add an FAQ at the top because it seems like people are just bringing up the same points over and over.
On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so.
Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
So... thought experiment question. If a cissexual female involuntarily has a penis constructed, and lived her life for the next several years... but had serious mental health problems with the penis... would you say it's a psychological problem, because the penis itself is not causing harm to her? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but I'm genuinely curious. It seems like the answer is that yes, the penis is causing her psychological harm (not physical, assuming the surgery went ok without complication). But we would also say she'd be perfectly right to want to get it removed, wouldn't we?
Any permanent change to the body is capable of causing psychological harm, even moving from the place you grew up can cause psychological harm. Being born with the desire you are describing isn't a change, it's an innate state of mind.
On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so.
Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate.
Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics?
lol, this is a very interesting question, almost philosophical. Basically asking how to define the true self, as the brain or the body. I'd say most people define the self as the brain.
And hence why they say no to the pill hypothetical.
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response.
You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically?
Being short sighted is considerably less physically debilitating than having a penis where there shouldn't be one, for a start I'm way less likely to commit suicide over it. There is physical damage being caused and fixing the physical problem will fix it. If you go to a doctor and say "I have this physical problem and it's ruining my life" and the doctor knows that addressing the physical problem will solve it then you don't expect them to go "are you sure you're not ruining your own life with all the knock on psychological reactions to this physical issue?", you expect them to correct the physical issue. It is a meaningless distinction. If you have something physically wrong with your body and it is causing medical issues then that should be the end of it, just as it is with shortsightedness.
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote: It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The fact that the definitions change a lot over time has more to do with how hard it is to define a psychiatric condition than it has to do about public opinion. If it was easy public opinion wouldn't have as much sway in the matter.
On December 05 2012 07:01 shinosai wrote: Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
In my case (I'm MtF), I would rather be a fully-realized cis woman than a cis man, for the reasons you described.
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote: It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
On December 05 2012 06:35 HumpingHydra wrote: I hope this thread continues because as of right now I feel misinformed.
How can someone who possesses genes that are of one sex, and had those genes play a fundamental role in developing their brain, decide with their brain that they were incorrectly assigned a combination of X and Y chromosomes? I feel like this is a definition of disorder? I mean the word literally means not in order... Their brain and genetics don't align. Are transgenders offended by the word disorder? I feel quite strongly that if anything is not functioning correctly, it is probibally the brain. There are so many factors that affect people as they develop that could skew "normal" functioning of the brain that I assume that the brain has developed in a way that isn't "normal". This being said, I don't care at all what the transgender people do, whether they change or not... but I don't understand why it wouldn't be classified as a disorder.
Again, I hope to gain a little more insight as to how everyone else feels. Its surely not a simple topic.
I am shortsighted. I'm not blind without glasses but my eyes don't work the way they should. It's a simple enough fix though, I am prescribed glasses and am judged as being no different from anyone else. Even presumptions regarding my eyesight don't really come into play because if I'm obviously wearing my glasses then I can see so there is no issue. I believe transgender people would like to be viewed in the same manner. Rather than being characterised as being mentally ill for feeling the way they I believe they would rather it was seen as comparable to being shortsighted, something has gone wrong with the body but it can be fixed and once it has been then there should be no assumption that they're any different from anyone else.
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological.
If the issue they're having is that they know that their gender is female but they physically have a penis then how is that not a physical problem? Me being shortsighted is just muscles in the eyes being badly calibrated, that's way less of a physical problem than having a penis in my eye would be.
Because the penis itself is not causing harm, it is the psychological reaction to the penis.
That's a meaningless distinction. Shortsightedness isn't harming me in any way, I still want to be able to see.
Shortsightedness is harming you... It is diminishing your vision, which again is a physical objectivity, not simply a psychological response.
You certainly wouldn't argue that blindness doesn't diminish people physically?
Being short sighted is considerably less physically debilitating than having a penis where there shouldn't be one, for a start I'm way less likely to commit suicide over it. There is physical damage being caused and fixing the physical problem will fix it. If you go to a doctor and say "I have this physical problem and it's ruining my life" and the doctor knows that addressing the physical problem will solve it then you don't expect them to go "are you sure you're not ruining your own life with all the knock on psychological reactions to this physical issue?", you expect them to correct the physical issue. It is a meaningless distinction. If you have something physically wrong with your body and it is causing medical issues then that should be the end of it, just as it is with shortsightedness.
Let's take depression as an example then.
Many severely depressed people feel they want to die. They simply think their life is not worth living and nothing and no one will change that fact. A psychologist would obviously not tell the person that what they are feeling is perfectly justified and therefore suicide is justified. The psychologist would say they are suffering from a mental disorder and need treatment for it.
And often, you give that person the right medication and almost magically their "innate self" changes and eventually they don't want to end their life. And they realize what they were feeling was not some objective reality or objective self, but simply chemicals in the brain behaving a certain way.
Obviously suicide is far more harmful than surgery, and I am not trying to compare the two, only to compare the mindset which instigated it. The reason we are so intent on not calling it a disorder is precisely because we are unable to treat it. As I argued before, if they discovered some medication in the 1940's that could prevent homosexuality from ever arising in the fetus, then homosexuality would be regarded as a disorder today precisely because we are capable of treating it.
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
Yes, there is. The difference is that the trans female will be happy once she undergoes treatment, whereas such a treatment would have no such effect on a man with the delusion of being female. In fact, upon undergoing treatment, the man with the delusion would likely become extremely depressed (as has been documented in cases where people mistakenly underwent treatment.)
This would not be much unlike your average person seeing a list of symptoms in a psychology journal for a particular disease, and since they are so vague, he says, aha! I have "borderline personality disorder." Is there a difference between someone who has borderline personality disorder and someone who feels that he has borderline personality disorder? Yes: In one case treatment will work, in the other it won't.
We can always be mistaken about our identities or mental health. That's why we have mental health professionals and very strict procedures to prevent permanent irreversible mistakes from occurring.
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
This would be exceedingly difficult to test, because there would be no grounds to scan somebody's brain for the female markers unless they exhibited gender dysphoria.
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote: You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
I think the more important point to make is that there ISN'T a way to make trans people "feel better" about having the wrong body. Transitioning (through treatments such as hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery) is the only proven method of treating transgender patients.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
Yes, there is. The difference is that the trans female will be happy once she undergoes treatment, whereas such a treatment would have no such effect on a man with the delusion of being female. In fact, upon undergoing treatment, the man with the delusion would likely become extremely depressed (as has been documented in cases where people mistakenly underwent treatment.)
This would not be much unlike your average person seeing a list of symptoms in a psychology journal for a particular disease, and since they are so vague, he says, aha! I have "borderline personality disorder." Is there a difference between someone who has borderline personality disorder and someone who feels that he has borderline personality disorder? Yes: In one case treatment will work, in the other it won't.
We can always be mistaken about our identities or mental health. That's why we have mental health professionals and very strict procedures to prevent permanent irreversible mistakes from occurring.
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote: It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
I disagree. The definition of an illness will always depend on the environment an individual with said illness is placed into. Just discovering how an illness looks on the biological level won't be enough to define it. Same as for the physical level. According to evolutionary theories, the earth of today is the result of deviances which have been proven successful in their respective environments.
You have white skin in a place where the sun burns you easily?You're ill (cause due to selection, the majority of the so called healthy population has dark skin, since those with your trait have died of skin cancer before reproducing, and so will you - hypothetically). You have dark skin in a village of whites and get killed by them? You're ill (according the APA definition of illness based on social consequences).
Maybe racism has even some sort of biological explanation when you think about this stuff. But it wouldn't be politically correct to go further.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
There hasn't been one found, and often when asked if they would rather have the emotional pain gone or become their identified sex, trans patients usually say the latter. It's not just about depression, it's also desperately wanting to live as themselves, being true to their own identity.. the depression being the result of that.
Even if you could make someone feel better about something that they so desperately need that they're suicidally miserable about it, they'd still have a need for it. But getting rid of that emotional pain hasn't even been a possible option. Anti-depressants haven't stopped it, receiving large amounts of testosterone didn't solve it either, forcing them to accept their "fate" of living as their assigned sex for the rest of their life usually led to committing suicide.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help)
Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly.
Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave.
It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Firstly, I'm incredibly in favor of further rights for transgenders and am glad for the declassification.
However (and this may be more in the realm of philosophy than reality), you are right that *potentially someday* there could be a 'treatment' that did not involve transitioning to another gender (though I can't imagine many transgenders would choose it, and forcing it brings up an entirely different debate). But the issue is that gender is now considered a core construct - an integral part of a person's psyche. If (when) we eventually develop the ability to alter something that deep scientifically, then I think transgenders will probably be the least of our concerns at that point (mind control will be a far bigger issue).
But as gender is considered a core part of a person, it is no longer fair to consider it a mental disorder when it is (philosophically speaking) a physical one.
Edit: The whole reason I'm talking about the future is that there is no known modern treatment for GID besides transitioning, and people have tried (especially in the 20th century - they tried extensively). Some things had partial effectiveness to a limited degree, but nothing (not even continuing down the path of partial successes) could 'solve' it except transitioning.
There are also a lot of somewhat interesting philosophical "what-ifs" that occur if you continue along the lines I mentioned earlier. For example, what if they narrow down the cause (current theory is unbalanced maternal hormones during brain development in utero) and can "correct the issue" before birth? Are they not making a choice for the unborn child?
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
I'll take a stab at the cat anecdote, but I'm no expert so if anyone would like to correct me feel free. When used with respect to trans issues, "gender" is defined as the way a person feels, independent from his or her physical characteristics. This is why it is proper to refer to a person that feels like a female as "she" or "her", even if she has masculine physical characteristics such a penis, deep voice, etc. Support for the correctness of this definition has been provided by previous posters who have cited studies and personal experiences, so I don't feel the need to go into that.
Thinking you are a cat is obviously different because we don't define "cat" as a person that thinks he or she is a cat. A person who feels female IS female, and should not be considered a person with a mental disorder. She can be treated for depression and other negative side affects that arise because her gender does not match her sex, but treatment should not be aimed at convincing her to feel like a male (that's been tried, and failed horribly). However, a person that thinks he or she is a cat, by definition, IS NOT a cat.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help)
Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly.
Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave.
It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
What is it like to feel like a man? All men are different. I doubt that I feel like most other men that I know (I certainly do not seem to think like them). There are some things that identify me as a man, such as my penis or by body size and shape, but men have different hormonal levels (is that a suitable term?) than other men.
I think trans sexuality is very difficult to understand unless you are trans sexual, because a person only knows what it is like to feel like themself.
On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo.
I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality.
People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
I have Aspergers syndrome and other learnig disorders but unless i tell someone its hard for them to notice , when i do tell them lots of people seem immediately uncomfortable that i am not normal . Lots of people dont realize that not everything is visible .
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote: It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
I disagree. The definition of an illness will always depend on the environment an individual with said illness is placed into. Just discovering how an illness looks on the biological level won't be enough to define it. Same as for the physical level. According to evolutionary theories, the earth of today is the result of deviances which have been proven successful in their respective environments.
You have white skin in a place where the sun burns you easily?You're ill (cause due to selection, the majority of the so called healthy population has dark skin, since those with your trait have died of skin cancer before reproducing, and so will you - hypothetically). You have dark skin in a village of whites and get killed by them? You're ill (according the APA definition of illness based on social consequences).
Um... what? One of these is a purely environmental factor. The other of these is people being dicks. One of these can be solved by stopping people from being dicks; the other cannot.
And no; generally speaking, psychological disorders are defined by social consequences.
On December 05 2012 07:37 Vivax wrote: Maybe racism has even some sort of biological explanation when you think about this stuff. But it wouldn't be politically correct to go further.
In general, when someone says that what they're about to say won't be "politically correct", I find that such statements are no less true if you drop "politically" from that sentence.
The "biological explanation" for racism is nothing more than the basic human instinct towards "us vs. them"; nothing more. Race is simply another way of classifying "us" and "them", much like religion, nationality, sports team, etc.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help)
Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly.
Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave.
It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
What is it like to feel like a man? All men are different. I doubt that I feel like most other men that I know (I certainly do not seem to think like them). There are some things that identify me as a man, such as my penis or by body size and shape, but men have different hormonal levels (is that a suitable term?) than other men.
I think trans sexuality is very difficult to understand unless you are trans sexual, because a person only knows what it is like to feel like themself.
Yea, that's a difficult question. Even though I identify as trans I could not explain in words what it means to feel like a woman. It's sort of ineffable, in the same way that I can't describe the color red (it's just red!) And yes, you are also correct, you can't understand what it's like unless you have the condition. All I can say on what it feels like to be a man or a woman is: You just know that you are who you are.
But I think people can understand the sorts of problems we face, by imagining what it would be like if they did not have their privilege. If people did not take for granted that you were a man, for example, but rather asked you to prove it when doing gender specific activities. And perhaps accused you of being a "fake man" - not real.... You can imagine that would be rather upsetting, wouldn't it?
And hey, maybe you don't even CARE if they identify you as a man or not. Maybe you have the "I don't give a fuck what people think of me" kind of attitude. But for some reason people keep coming up to you and demanding proof that your gender is what you say it is. Distressing? Indeed.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
On December 05 2012 05:53 shinosai wrote: Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
Here's an open question to everybody who sees themselves as trans. You're saying that you feel like a woman/man, and that it has nothing to do with stereotypes. But if that's the case, what is it about you that makes you feel like you're female/male? I mean, can you tell me the points that your mind is making, to prove that you're a specific gender? I honestly did try asking myself that question, and I haven't been able to convince myself that I'm either gender. That's why I reject that gender and sex would be different. Please show me your line of thinking, or I will never be able to understand you. So far, noone in this thread have been able to convince me that there is such a thing as a mental gender, that isn't defined by your sex.
I believe that the majority of us don't like their own body, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with it. If a woman doesn't like her tiny boobs, even to the point that it leads to depressions, does it mean that there's something wrong with them? No, it just means that they were made that way. Now, if she wants to enlarge them, then she can go ahead if it will make her happy, but this concept that there's something wrong with your body if you don't like it, or even hate it, is pure BS. The issue is in the head, not the body.
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is classic cissexual thinking. You can't tell the difference between sex and gender because yours are in alignment.
Calling that lack of understanding a "theory" (it hasn't been for a long time) is basically like saying you don't believe in transgender people because you can't feel the gender dissonance that they feel.
It's always kind of funny to see people flip out MASSIVELLY about any sex and gender related issue. Why do you think homosexuals/transgender people are the way they are? Do you think one day they woke up and decided to change their lives, "mutilate their bodies" like some people in this thread claim, be hated, discriminated and ostracised just for kicks and giggles?
People often carry their gender "badge" as some sort of pride "Oh look, I'm a man, look at these faggots" without considering the idea that they could have easily been in that person's shoes because, you know, no one actually chooses their sexuality or gender. It's just an interesting phenomenon in our species in general, basically EVERY SINGLE discrimination issue throughout our history has been about something a person cannot choose like the color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
However, sex and gender related issues take a lot longer to be accepted because at a fundamental biological level we notice and care about sex a lot more than most other things. So anything "unnatural" about it automatically makes us feel this repulsion. It makes sense except that we as human beings have this brain which can make rational logical decisions instead of following our instinctual tendencies. As an example, this is why we don't support bullying even though technically it's a perfectly normal mechanism in nature to "filter out the weak".
The line between which gender you're born with is extremely thin, your dad's sperm was flipping a coin, so to speak (god damn that sounds weird, I apologize). In some people, something "messed up" and now there's a mismatch between their mind and their body. Unless you have evidence that it's possible to "fix them" so they would be "normal" again, you have no fucking right to discriminate them upon that criteria.
As a note on privilege: privilege is like wearing orange sun-goggles constantly. There are some things you can't see, some shades you can't tell apart, but you can't know this because you have privilege. You can have someone explain it to you, and you can get these shades are different, but that does not mean you can see them yourself. The reason transsexuality is so foreign to cisgendered people is that if your gender and sex align you aren't constantly aware of it. Just like how when you wear orange goggles long enough everything looks normal.
On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so.
Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate.
Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
Yeah, no. I'd rather transition 5 times over again than switch my brain out.
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
I'll take a stab at the cat anecdote, but I'm no expert so if anyone would like to correct me feel free. When used with respect to trans issues, "gender" is defined as the way a person feels, independent from his or her physical characteristics. This is why it is proper to refer to a person that feels like a female as "she" or "her", even if she has masculine physical characteristics such a penis, deep voice, etc. Support for the correctness of this definition has been provided by previous posters who have cited studies and personal experiences, so I don't feel the need to go into that.
Thinking you are a cat is obviously different because we don't define "cat" as a person that thinks he or she is a cat. A person who feels female IS female, and should not be considered a person with a mental disorder. She can be treated for depression and other negative side affects that arise because her gender does not match her sex, but treatment should not be aimed at convincing her to feel like a male (that's been tried, and failed horribly). However, a person that thinks he or she is a cat, by definition, IS NOT a cat.
I understand what you're saying with regards to the definition of the words, but I think there's another issue here to think about. The reason for seeking treatment is the dysphoria from being in a body of the wrong sex. So if someone experiences dysphoria because they consider their human body to be the "wrong" body and that their shape should be different (whatever it may be, chimpanzee or cat or human with a tail), and we have the technology to give them that, should we try to convince them to feel human or just let them have what they want?
I can buy (an extension of) shinosai's argument that if modifying their body won't fix these issues then it's a mental disorder, and if it will, then it isn't. I'm no psychologist so I have no idea whether it's possible to distinguish the two beforehand or whether the second type of person (who will be happy as a cat) even exists, but practical issues aside it seems reasonable.
I'd be interested to see people read the wikipedia definition of transgender, because from the line of argument of alot of this thread (at least what i've skim read!) it seems to be wildly misunderstood, or understood only in the extreme.
On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote: It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions: Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill. For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
I disagree. The definition of an illness will always depend on the environment an individual with said illness is placed into. Just discovering how an illness looks on the biological level won't be enough to define it. Same as for the physical level. According to evolutionary theories, the earth of today is the result of deviances which have been proven successful in their respective environments.
You have white skin in a place where the sun burns you easily?You're ill (cause due to selection, the majority of the so called healthy population has dark skin, since those with your trait have died of skin cancer before reproducing, and so will you - hypothetically). You have dark skin in a village of whites and get killed by them? You're ill (according the APA definition of illness based on social consequences).
Um... what? One of these is a purely environmental factor. The other of these is people being dicks. One of these can be solved by stopping people from being dicks; the other cannot.
And no; generally speaking, psychological disorders are defined by social consequences.
Yeah, what you call people being dicks is what I call socially constructed disease. I didn't make the point clear there. See my earlier post :> . We actually have the same opinion.
On December 05 2012 07:37 Vivax wrote: Maybe racism has even some sort of biological explanation when you think about this stuff. But it wouldn't be politically correct to go further.
In general, when someone says that what they're about to say won't be "politically correct", I find that such statements are no less true if you drop "politically" from that sentence.
The "biological explanation" for racism is nothing more than the basic human instinct towards "us vs. them"; nothing more. Race is simply another way of classifying "us" and "them", much like religion, nationality, sports team, etc.
I was thinking of possible benefits for a gene pool in case that it removed (murdered) deviances.But thinking about it, there might be thousands of pro and cons, also depending on the organism you look at, so yeah, remove the politically.
In essence though, I believe that the gender that matters for individuals is the one given to them by their mind, not their genitals.
I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
On December 05 2012 08:30 XeliN wrote: I'd be interested to see people read the wikipedia definition of transgender, because from the line of argument of alot of this thread (at least what i've skim read!) it seems to be wildly misunderstood, or understood only in the extreme.
For what it's worth, this is a difficult subject for many people to understand. I've added some quotations from posts in this thread I've thought were particularly good to the OP. I think people are honestly trying to learn and there are some really great people here with lots of patience explaining things. TL Mods have kept out the bad actors and this is a great discussion imo.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other/queer trans women. Same goes for trans men (FtM).
Some statistics done before on that: A survey of roughly 3000 trans women showed that only 23% of them identified as heterosexual, with 31% as bisexual, 29% as lesbian, 7% as asexual, 7% as queer and 2% as "other".
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
You know, despite saying that, I actually got along with your comparison. So how come you didn't answer to that, or answered my main question, instead of repeating yourself? Because you can't answer my questions?
I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
No. Our sexuality has nothing to do with our gender identity. There are both lesbian and heterosexual trans females.
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
You know, despite saying that, I actually got along with your comparison. So how come you didn't answer to that, or answered my main question, instead of repeating yourself? Because you can't answer my questions?
No, I can't answer your question. But I can't tell you what it's like to experience the color red, either, so I don't think that it's a very pressing point.
Edit: I feel this is probably important to answer, though, and I can answer this:
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
The way you are treated is actually highly related to actualizing your identity. One cannot identify themselves as a woman while simultaneously being treated and looking like a man. Your identity requires social confirmation AND internal confirmation. Hence why trans people experience "dysphoria." You cannot separate your gender identity from social interactions, because social interactions can undermine your gender identity. Hence why we're having this discussion in the first place. We have many people in the world that accuse trans people of being "fake" and not "really" their gender, and this is extremely harmful to our gender identity.
In the trans community perhaps nothing is discussed quite as much as "passing." It is, of course, no coincidence, that we are all obsessed with passing. It's extremely painful every time someone tells us that we are not who we say we are. Something that cissexuals have the privilege of never experiencing.
edit: Also, I really do have to question whether or not you really believe that you have no feelings of attachment to your gender. But perhaps as an experiment, go to the store and shop around for some really girly panties and perhaps some tampons and tell me if you felt neutral towards people's reactions? I mean, I don't know many guys that could do it, myself. Because they identify as male and it would piss them off for someone to question their masculinity.
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
The man with the delusion believes that his body is female. He may either be happy with that situation, or he may be depressed that his male mind has a female body. Either way, he is mentally ill because he is unable to perceive physical reality correctly.
The trans female has a female mindset inside of a male body. She is able to perceive reality just fine, therefore she is not mentally ill.
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
The "cat issue" is a ridiculous and irrelevant distraction. It can, and provably does, happen that most human beings are born with mindsets that self-identify as male or female, and that sometimes a male body is born with a female mindset (and vice versa). No human is born with the feeling that they were supposed to be a different animal.
If such a thing was even possible, they wouldn't be able to verbalize their feelings (yes, yes, "unless they're a parrot"). But this discussion is just silly and irrelevant, like people arguing "I could maybe feel ok about allowing gay marriage... but what if they start allowing people to marry toasters next?"
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
If you had a disorder where you believed you were an alien cyborg from the year 3000, and this disorder could somehow be cured using brain surgery... it's still a mental disorder regardless of what form the treatment comes in.
Your view also implies that a transgender person in today's society is mentally fine, but if he could travel through a portal back in time, he would suddenly become a mentally ill person. Hop back through the portal and he's normal again!
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
I think many (but of course not all) transgendered people are "straight" once they have completed their sex change surgeries. For instance, with someone born with a female body but a male mindset... typically someone with a male mindset will be attracted to women. So this person will eventually become a male who dates women.
But this isn't a fixed rule. Being a male trapped in a female's body could happen to a person who has the mindset of a gay male, for instance.
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
So you're basing their gender off of their mental state rather than their physical body? That makes a lot of sense, not.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other/queer trans women. Same goes for trans men (FtM).
Some statistics done before on that: A survey of roughly 3000 trans women showed that only 23% of them identified as heterosexual, with 31% as bisexual, 29% as lesbian, 7% as asexual, 7% as queer and 2% as "other".
I am surprised that so few of them identify as heterosexual. It's understandable that the heterosexuality rate would be lower than normal, but not that much lower.
I bet if it could be 'fixed' with drugs the APA would be fine with it being labeled a disorder. /cynical
I have read that some peoples brains are just female or male because of strange hormonal imbalances in the mothers womb. Though their body is male they think of things from a feminine point of view. Where that can sometimes take the manifestation of homosexuality or wanting to go fully fledged sex change is an interesting scientific discovery for the next generation to tackle most likely, though we are close.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other/queer trans women. Same goes for trans men (FtM).
Some statistics done before on that: A survey of roughly 3000 trans women showed that only 23% of them identified as heterosexual, with 31% as bisexual, 29% as lesbian, 7% as asexual, 7% as queer and 2% as "other".
I am surprised that so few of them identify as heterosexual. It's understandable that the heterosexuality rate would be lower than normal, but not that much lower.
I tend not to think of it as particularly surprising. People who already identify as queer are probably more open to alternate sexualities. I suspect that the heterosexual population isn't nearly as large a majority as they think they are - it's highly influenced by social stigma. Hence why bisexuality in women is waaaay more prominent than in men.
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
So you're basing their gender off of their mental state rather than their physical body? That makes a lot of sense, not.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off of their physical body is? Because that's what you were taught? Ah, well, I'm convinced, then. Zing.
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
So you're basing their gender off of their mental state rather than their physical body? That makes a lot of sense, not.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off of their physical body is? Because that's what you were taught? Ah, well, I'm convinced, then. Zing.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off their mental state is? Well if that's the case, then I believe that I am actually some wolf so I should go have surgery to look as close to them as possible.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other/queer trans women. Same goes for trans men (FtM).
Some statistics done before on that: A survey of roughly 3000 trans women showed that only 23% of them identified as heterosexual, with 31% as bisexual, 29% as lesbian, 7% as asexual, 7% as queer and 2% as "other".
I am surprised that so few of them identify as heterosexual. It's understandable that the heterosexuality rate would be lower than normal, but not that much lower.
I tend not to think of it as particularly surprising. People who already identify as queer are probably more open to alternate sexualities. I suspect that the heterosexual population isn't nearly as large a majority as they think they are - it's highly influenced by social stigma. Hence why bisexuality in women is waaaay more prominent than in men.
More open, yes. But to the point where only 23% are straight? That's a huge difference.
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
So you're basing their gender off of their mental state rather than their physical body? That makes a lot of sense, not.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off of their physical body is? Because that's what you were taught? Ah, well, I'm convinced, then. Zing.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off their mental state is? Well if that's the case, then I believe that I am actually some wolf so I should go have surgery to look as close to them as possible.
False analogy. No one actually believes they are a wolf. Again, you frame the question in such a way that you cannot be wrong. You assume that the person is wrong about their identity, and therefore offer a "solution" that seems correct based on this assumption.
Belief, of course, is insufficient to be transgender. Cissexuals often like to mischaracterize transsexuals as believing they are the opposite sex because of some sort of whimsical thought or fantasy, rather than the intense feelings and self analysis that they go through, not to mention subjecting themselves to serious medical professionals who specialize in dealing with these issues. You can believe you are transsexual and not actually be transsexual. The easiest way to find out is to go get hormone therapy and find that the treatment made your condition much worse instead of better.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is classic cissexual thinking. You can't tell the difference between sex and gender because yours are in alignment.
Calling that lack of understanding a "theory" (it hasn't been for a long time) is basically like saying you don't believe in transgender people because you can't feel the gender dissonance that they feel.
How convenient to say that I just will never be able to understand, because of who I am. Just tell me what the difference between the sex and gender is, and I might understand. If you can't even explain roughly how it feels like to be the male or female gender, how do you expect me to take the concepts seriously?
I believe that the placebo effect (and similar concepts) is very relevant here.
On December 05 2012 08:29 starfries wrote: I can buy (an extension of) shinosai's argument that if modifying their body won't fix these issues then it's a mental disorder, and if it will, then it isn't. I'm no psychologist so I have no idea whether it's possible to distinguish the two beforehand or whether the second type of person (who will be happy as a cat) even exists, but practical issues aside it seems reasonable.
So if a woman hates her boobs, and gets implants, and she's still depressed afterwards, it was a failed attempt at making herself happier, pointing towards some form of mental issue that needs fixing, but if it makes her happier, it was not a mental issue that made her unhappy, rather it was something wrong with her body that she had to fix.
On December 05 2012 08:31 Vivax wrote: I just wonder about one thing: Are trans rather attracted to the sex of their opposite gender or of their same (=men feeling like women attracted to men or to women?)
There are straight, lesbian, bisexual, asexual and other/queer trans women. Same goes for trans men (FtM).
Some statistics done before on that: A survey of roughly 3000 trans women showed that only 23% of them identified as heterosexual, with 31% as bisexual, 29% as lesbian, 7% as asexual, 7% as queer and 2% as "other".
I am surprised that so few of them identify as heterosexual. It's understandable that the heterosexuality rate would be lower than normal, but not that much lower.
I tend not to think of it as particularly surprising. People who already identify as queer are probably more open to alternate sexualities. I suspect that the heterosexual population isn't nearly as large a majority as they think they are - it's highly influenced by social stigma. Hence why bisexuality in women is waaaay more prominent than in men.
More open, yes. But to the point where only 23% are straight? That's a huge difference.
On December 05 2012 09:09 Nightops wrote: How's that not a mental disorder, a guy wanting to be a girl or vice versa? what a joke
The framework in which you pose the question is inherently incorrect. The case is actually that there is a girl who wants to be a girl, and actually is a girl, and is taking steps to align her body with her mind. But yea, if you assume from the outset that the person is incorrect or delusional about who they are (an assumption that has no trouble repeating itself many times in this thread) then sure, it seems like an obvious mental disorder.
A guy who wants to be a girl implies that the person isn't really a girl. The frame deliberately undermines their psyche before you even ask the question.
So you're basing their gender off of their mental state rather than their physical body? That makes a lot of sense, not.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off of their physical body is? Because that's what you were taught? Ah, well, I'm convinced, then. Zing.
And your argument for why people ought to base their gender off their mental state is? Well if that's the case, then I believe that I am actually some wolf so I should go have surgery to look as close to them as possible.
If I knew for a fact that you were born with mindset of a wolf (same intellect, same instincts, etc.) and I had the ability to give you a wolf's body, I would do it.
But there is no point to discussing these extremely silly "what if" situations that do not actually happen. It is just like discussing whether gay marriage should be legal, and someone keeps saying "well, what if someone wants to marry a toaster? what if someone wants to marry a tomato? what if someone wants to marry the moon?"
These are nonsensical situations that do not happen and hold no relevance to the discussion.
So if a woman hates her boobs, and gets implants, and she's still depressed afterwards, it was a failed attempt at making herself happier, pointing towards some form of mental issue that needs fixing, but if it makes her happier, it was not a mental issue that made her unhappy, rather it was something wrong with her body that she had to fix.
I'm actually pretty comfortable with agreeing with this statement. Consider cancer patients who lose their breasts because of breast cancer. Do you consider their distress of not having breasts to be purely a mental thing, rather than something wrong with their body?
Should we deny breast implants to cancer patients because clearly they simply have "mental issues" that we could address without chest augmentation surgery?
On December 04 2012 13:13 ClanRH.TV wrote: I'm curious what type of issues was this classification causing for them? Specific examples please. I haven't heard of people being discriminated against solely based on being able to classify them with this disorder (or past disorder I guess). People may discriminate based off of their own beliefs, but in what instances were they being discriminated against legally? Just curious for actual examples.
Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
As the OP said, the best to hope for is better insurance coverage, since Genital Reassignment Surgery for many individuals is arguably necessary, and yet still costs a good 20k+
From studies I've read in my undergrad, I heard that gender reassignment generally doesn't improve quality of life for many of those who have it done. Is this still supported?
On December 04 2012 13:13 ClanRH.TV wrote: I'm curious what type of issues was this classification causing for them? Specific examples please. I haven't heard of people being discriminated against solely based on being able to classify them with this disorder (or past disorder I guess). People may discriminate based off of their own beliefs, but in what instances were they being discriminated against legally? Just curious for actual examples.
Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
As the OP said, the best to hope for is better insurance coverage, since Genital Reassignment Surgery for many individuals is arguably necessary, and yet still costs a good 20k+
From studies I've read in my undergrad, I heard that gender reassignment generally doesn't improve quality of life for many of those who have it done. Is this still supported?
It depends on what you mean by gender reassignment. If you mean gender reassignment surgery - no, it does not. Merely having surgery will not cure or fix underlying mental health problems. This is actually not surprising, since genitalia has very little to do with whether or not one is treated as a man or woman. Mostly, our quality of life as a transsexual is going to be highly related to our secondary sexual characteristics (whether or not people in public perceive us as the correct gender).
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
In other words, people who have the surgery are actually alleviated from their dysphoria (quality of life improves in this respect) but this does not necessarily cure their other health problems.
For the record not all transsexuals wish to undergo srs.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Make them feel like they should ? Changing their body does make them feel like they should who are we to deny people the right to change their body ? Let them I don't think its within our rights to judge them or prevent them from changing because they identify as female , as has been addressed before their brain is FINE their body is not according to them , let them do what they want , its their body .
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 .
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is classic cissexual thinking. You can't tell the difference between sex and gender because yours are in alignment.
Calling that lack of understanding a "theory" (it hasn't been for a long time) is basically like saying you don't believe in transgender people because you can't feel the gender dissonance that they feel.
How convenient to say that I just will never be able to understand, because of who I am. Just tell me what the difference between the sex and gender is, and I might understand. If you can't even explain roughly how it feels like to be the male or female gender, how do you expect me to take the concepts seriously?
I believe that the placebo effect (and similar concepts) is very relevant here.
On December 05 2012 08:29 starfries wrote: I can buy (an extension of) shinosai's argument that if modifying their body won't fix these issues then it's a mental disorder, and if it will, then it isn't. I'm no psychologist so I have no idea whether it's possible to distinguish the two beforehand or whether the second type of person (who will be happy as a cat) even exists, but practical issues aside it seems reasonable.
So if a woman hates her boobs, and gets implants, and she's still depressed afterwards, it was a failed attempt at making herself happier, pointing towards some form of mental issue that needs fixing, but if it makes her happier, it was not a mental issue that made her unhappy, rather it was something wrong with her body that she had to fix.
Lots of people dislike their bodies because in their understanding society views them as having a less then ideal body having social pressures can cause a disorder but trans people are born like this the guilt and other aspects are from society ( i believe ?) that doesnt accept what they are .
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote: I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
The man with the delusion believes that his body is female. He may either be happy with that situation, or he may be depressed that his male mind has a female body. Either way, he is mentally ill because he is unable to perceive physical reality correctly.
The trans female has a female mindset inside of a male body. She is able to perceive reality just fine, therefore she is not mentally ill.
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
The "cat issue" is a ridiculous and irrelevant distraction. It can, and provably does, happen that most human beings are born with mindsets that self-identify as male or female, and that sometimes a male body is born with a female mindset (and vice versa). No human is born with the feeling that they were supposed to be a different animal.
If such a thing was even possible, they wouldn't be able to verbalize their feelings (yes, yes, "unless they're a parrot"). But this discussion is just silly and irrelevant, like people arguing "I could maybe feel ok about allowing gay marriage... but what if they start allowing people to marry toasters next?"
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
If you had a disorder where you believed you were an alien cyborg from the year 3000, and this disorder could somehow be cured using brain surgery... it's still a mental disorder regardless of what form the treatment comes in.
Your view also implies that a transgender person in today's society is mentally fine, but if he could travel through a portal back in time, he would suddenly become a mentally ill person. Hop back through the portal and he's normal again!
I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's a legitimate question. I mean, it's not something that happens but it's a good way to illustrate differences. I'm not trying to make some slippery slope argument. The goal is here is understanding and if I have to ask stupid questions that may offend people then so be it.
Anyways, I get the idea now - there are identifiably male and female brains, and trans people are those whose brains do not match their body. Whereas people are not born with cat brains.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it.
The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much.
Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification.
Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is classic cissexual thinking. You can't tell the difference between sex and gender because yours are in alignment.
Calling that lack of understanding a "theory" (it hasn't been for a long time) is basically like saying you don't believe in transgender people because you can't feel the gender dissonance that they feel.
How convenient to say that I just will never be able to understand, because of who I am. Just tell me what the difference between the sex and gender is, and I might understand. If you can't even explain roughly how it feels like to be the male or female gender, how do you expect me to take the concepts seriously?
You've already been told what the difference is. The problem is that you reject what you've been told. You said:
On December 05 2012 08:12 ninini wrote: I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
You reject the entire concept of gender dysphoria based solely on your personal cissexual experience. You even have the gall to claim that it is "self-explanatory" and therefore obvious. Thus requiring no actual evidential support or justification on your part. Why? For no reason other than the fact that you yourself have never felt the difference.
That's the whole cis privilege thing in a nutshell: just because you personally can't feel the difference doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.
Personally, I'm with you in terms of "understanding" gender dysphoria. I only get the concept in abstract terms. I don't "feel" my gender and sex as being separate concepts.
The difference is that I don't devalue the feelings of others based on that fact. I may not understand what they're going though, but I'm not willing to say that their claims are wrong based solely on my personal inability to understand or experience it. People who have studied this concept say that there's a difference between them, and that gender dysphoria is a real phenomenon. I'm willing to defer to the opinion of people who actually know this stuff, even if it doesn't agree with my personal experiences.
On December 04 2012 13:13 ClanRH.TV wrote: I'm curious what type of issues was this classification causing for them? Specific examples please. I haven't heard of people being discriminated against solely based on being able to classify them with this disorder (or past disorder I guess). People may discriminate based off of their own beliefs, but in what instances were they being discriminated against legally? Just curious for actual examples.
Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
As the OP said, the best to hope for is better insurance coverage, since Genital Reassignment Surgery for many individuals is arguably necessary, and yet still costs a good 20k+
From studies I've read in my undergrad, I heard that gender reassignment generally doesn't improve quality of life for many of those who have it done. Is this still supported?
It depends on what you mean by gender reassignment. If you mean gender reassignment surgery - no, it does not. Merely having surgery will not cure or fix underlying mental health problems. This is actually not surprising, since genitalia has very little to do with whether or not one is treated as a man or woman. Mostly, our quality of life as a transsexual is going to be highly related to our secondary sexual characteristics (whether or not people in public perceive us as the correct gender).
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
In other words, people who have the surgery are actually alleviated from their dysphoria (quality of life improves in this respect) but this does not necessarily cure their other health problems.
For the record not all transsexuals wish to undergo srs.
If I recall, the studies I had read on the subject showed a decrease in suicide ratings than for pre-operative trans individuals. How that measures against the general populace doesn't really matter much... does it?
edit; although I guess my post doesn't mean shit other than an opinion without a citation. I'll try to dig up the one I was thinking of...
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.
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 .
I can't help but wonder at the people who claim those opposed to it are uninformed and ignorant. These people usually have very little to NO working knowledge in psychiatry at all, as well as little to no knowledge about the brain.
Will people who are anorexic because they can't see their body realistically be dropped from mental illness as well? Will people who cut their bodies because they can't stand how it looks also be removed from the category? How about people who think their body is someone else's, or their body is alien and must be removed?
Most of the people for this have terrible reasoning as to why. I prefer people to actually think deeply about this issue. How could ANY of these people "change" themselves without technology?
Is it possible that it's due to the increasing male shaming and male hate, that TG numbers are increasing? Is it possible that people who feel like a woman in a man's body or vice versa, actually have a body image disorder, because we have discovered that there IS in fact a part of the brain that is required to be working in order for us to be aware of and accepting of our own body?
In all of this, the "proof" is never some easily pointed to spot, the proof is "an overriding feeling". Women have male DNA in their brains, and men have female DNA. Yet most men and women don't feel like their sex is wrong.
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
You know, despite saying that, I actually got along with your comparison. So how come you didn't answer to that, or answered my main question, instead of repeating yourself? Because you can't answer my questions?
No, I can't answer your question. But I can't tell you what it's like to experience the color red, either, so I don't think that it's a very pressing point.
Edit: I feel this is probably important to answer, though, and I can answer this:
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
The way you are treated is actually highly related to actualizing your identity. One cannot identify themselves as a woman while simultaneously being treated and looking like a man. Your identity requires social confirmation AND internal confirmation. Hence why trans people experience "dysphoria." You cannot separate your gender identity from social interactions, because social interactions can undermine your gender identity. Hence why we're having this discussion in the first place. We have many people in the world that accuse trans people of being "fake" and not "really" their gender, and this is extremely harmful to our gender identity.
In the trans community perhaps nothing is discussed quite as much as "passing." It is, of course, no coincidence, that we are all obsessed with passing. It's extremely painful every time someone tells us that we are not who we say we are. Something that cissexuals have the privilege of never experiencing.
edit: Also, I really do have to question whether or not you really believe that you have no feelings of attachment to your gender. But perhaps as an experiment, go to the store and shop around for some really girly panties and perhaps some tampons and tell me if you felt neutral towards people's reactions? I mean, I don't know many guys that could do it, myself. Because they identify as male and it would piss them off for someone to question their masculinity.
Now you're talking about identifying to stereotypes, and didn't you and everybody else say that gender was something else? I'm a guy, and I have long hair that goes down to the shoulders. Many interpret this as me trying to be more feminine, but that's not what it's about. It's about me being me. I just prefer long hair, atleast right now. I realize that long hair is stereotypical female, but that doesn't mean that guys with long hair should have their sense of gender questioned.
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.
As for the shopping. I wouldn't really have any use of tampons and I think male underwear probably looks better on me. If I felt an urge to wear dresses, I'm not sure I would do it, not because it would be against my gender identity, but because of how others would treat me because of it. It's just not worth it, and that's a shame, but like I said, if gender is about fitting in, it's BS in my book.
So if a woman hates her boobs, and gets implants, and she's still depressed afterwards, it was a failed attempt at making herself happier, pointing towards some form of mental issue that needs fixing, but if it makes her happier, it was not a mental issue that made her unhappy, rather it was something wrong with her body that she had to fix.
I'm actually pretty comfortable with agreeing with this statement. Consider cancer patients who lose their breasts because of breast cancer. Do you consider their distress of not having breasts to be purely a mental thing, rather than something wrong with their body?
Should we deny breast implants to cancer patients because clearly they simply have "mental issues" that we could address without chest augmentation surgery?
Breast cancer is about something healthy, changing and becoming toxic, and you should be allowed to restore them to their original shape, because that's how they were made.
My point was that when a woman with healthy breasts gets implants, it's a way to try and be something that you're not, and whether the implants makes her happier or not, doesn't change that fact.
I believe in cosmetics surgery in order to restore what you have lost in accidents or because of cancer, but I don't believe in cosmetics surgery to get something that you never had.
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
You know, despite saying that, I actually got along with your comparison. So how come you didn't answer to that, or answered my main question, instead of repeating yourself? Because you can't answer my questions?
No, I can't answer your question. But I can't tell you what it's like to experience the color red, either, so I don't think that it's a very pressing point.
Edit: I feel this is probably important to answer, though, and I can answer this:
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
The way you are treated is actually highly related to actualizing your identity. One cannot identify themselves as a woman while simultaneously being treated and looking like a man. Your identity requires social confirmation AND internal confirmation. Hence why trans people experience "dysphoria." You cannot separate your gender identity from social interactions, because social interactions can undermine your gender identity. Hence why we're having this discussion in the first place. We have many people in the world that accuse trans people of being "fake" and not "really" their gender, and this is extremely harmful to our gender identity.
In the trans community perhaps nothing is discussed quite as much as "passing." It is, of course, no coincidence, that we are all obsessed with passing. It's extremely painful every time someone tells us that we are not who we say we are. Something that cissexuals have the privilege of never experiencing.
edit: Also, I really do have to question whether or not you really believe that you have no feelings of attachment to your gender. But perhaps as an experiment, go to the store and shop around for some really girly panties and perhaps some tampons and tell me if you felt neutral towards people's reactions? I mean, I don't know many guys that could do it, myself. Because they identify as male and it would piss them off for someone to question their masculinity.
Now you're talking about identifying to stereotypes, and didn't you and everybody else say that gender was something else? I'm a guy, and I have long hair that goes down to the shoulders. Many interpret this as me trying to be more feminine, but that's not what it's about. It's about me being me. I just prefer long hair, atleast right now. I realize that long hair is stereotypical female, but that doesn't mean that guys with long hair should have their sense of gender questioned.
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.
As for the shopping. I wouldn't really have any use of tampons and I think male underwear probably looks better on me. If I felt an urge to wear dresses, I'm not sure I would do it, not because it would be against my gender identity, but because of how others would treat me because of it. It's just not worth it, and that's a shame, but like I said, if gender is about fitting in, it's BS in my book.
So if a woman hates her boobs, and gets implants, and she's still depressed afterwards, it was a failed attempt at making herself happier, pointing towards some form of mental issue that needs fixing, but if it makes her happier, it was not a mental issue that made her unhappy, rather it was something wrong with her body that she had to fix.
I'm actually pretty comfortable with agreeing with this statement. Consider cancer patients who lose their breasts because of breast cancer. Do you consider their distress of not having breasts to be purely a mental thing, rather than something wrong with their body?
Should we deny breast implants to cancer patients because clearly they simply have "mental issues" that we could address without chest augmentation surgery?
Breast cancer is about something healthy, changing and becoming toxic, and you should be allowed to restore them to their original shape, because that's how they were made.
My point was that when a woman with healthy breasts gets implants, it's a way to try and be something that you're not, and whether the implants makes her happier or not, doesn't change that fact.
I believe in cosmetics surgery in order to restore what you have lost in accidents or because of cancer, but I don't believe in cosmetics surgery to get something that you never had.
the breast implant after a disease is a fallacious analogy. That supposes that the disease here is women being born men or men being born women, Even though it's not a disease to be born with all working and functioning parts, with no detrimental effects on your body's health.
cancer is a detriment and destructive. The only way this sexuality is destructive is by the negative feelings the person has towards their own body.
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?
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.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
There hasn't been one found, and often when asked if they would rather have the emotional pain gone or become their identified sex, trans patients usually say the latter. It's not just about depression, it's also desperately wanting to live as themselves, being true to their own identity.. the depression being the result of that.
Even if you could make someone feel better about something that they so desperately need that they're suicidally miserable about it, they'd still have a need for it. But getting rid of that emotional pain hasn't even been a possible option. Anti-depressants haven't stopped it, receiving large amounts of testosterone didn't solve it either, forcing them to accept their "fate" of living as their assigned sex for the rest of their life usually led to committing suicide.
We haven't found a solution yet. It's not like we have much research into this right now.
It's entirely possible there is no solution, and that surgery really is the only way, but we're very far away from being able to make that conclusion.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help)
Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly.
Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave.
It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
You really have no idea if your brain is functional fine or not lol. No one really does, and so long as we're happy it doesn't really matter.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I never even called it a mental disorder. I said there's a possibility we can solve it with medicine, and simply choosing the brute force method of mutilating one's own body shouldn't be the ideal solution.
On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote: The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable.
That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts?
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Firstly, I'm incredibly in favor of further rights for transgenders and am glad for the declassification.
However (and this may be more in the realm of philosophy than reality), you are right that *potentially someday* there could be a 'treatment' that did not involve transitioning to another gender (though I can't imagine many transgenders would choose it, and forcing it brings up an entirely different debate). But the issue is that gender is now considered a core construct - an integral part of a person's psyche. If (when) we eventually develop the ability to alter something that deep scientifically, then I think transgenders will probably be the least of our concerns at that point (mind control will be a far bigger issue).
But as gender is considered a core part of a person, it is no longer fair to consider it a mental disorder when it is (philosophically speaking) a physical one.
Edit: The whole reason I'm talking about the future is that there is no known modern treatment for GID besides transitioning, and people have tried (especially in the 20th century - they tried extensively). Some things had partial effectiveness to a limited degree, but nothing (not even continuing down the path of partial successes) could 'solve' it except transitioning.
There are also a lot of somewhat interesting philosophical "what-ifs" that occur if you continue along the lines I mentioned earlier. For example, what if they narrow down the cause (current theory is unbalanced maternal hormones during brain development in utero) and can "correct the issue" before birth? Are they not making a choice for the unborn child?
You're right, a person's gender is a huge deal in defining them, but so is a person's body. Even if you think your personality is YOU, you are also defined by your body. The two are simply two halves to a whole. Changing your body is just a big a change to someone as changing their personality.
Who knows though. Maybe we're reaching a point were gender is becoming less well defined (gender roles are already changing), and a hundred years from now we'll all just like who we like because we like them, and we won't be categorized.
I just don't want to be assaulted for calling someone "sir" or "ma'am" just because I guessed wrong on their gender. My brain sees a man, I call them sir. It's not something we think about, and it's certainly not something I want to ask every person I talk to just to make sure I am guessing correctly. "Excuse me, would you like to be referred to as a man or a woman?"
On December 05 2012 09:21 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: I bet if it could be 'fixed' with drugs the APA would be fine with it being labeled a disorder. /cynical
I have read that some peoples brains are just female or male because of strange hormonal imbalances in the mothers womb. Though their body is male they think of things from a feminine point of view. Where that can sometimes take the manifestation of homosexuality or wanting to go fully fledged sex change is an interesting scientific discovery for the next generation to tackle most likely, though we are close.
This would be my point: Men who think more like a women, or behave in more feminine ways, are socially castigated and treated like crap by people. Thus, there is shame and guilt and hatred of their own body, so they seek to actually BECOME female in appearance, so that they can behave in those ways without being socially outcast.
How about this for cynicism: As it is not labelled a disorder, it reduces the roadblocks to going into expensive plastic surgery to change their bodies. Also, TGs who get SRS have to take pills for life to suppress their male or female hormones.
So it actually makes pill companies and plastic surgeons more money to have the hurdles removed for them. More patients, faster SRS treatment, more $.
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?
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 .
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
Maybe it is the brain that is the issue. But again, the thing is, most transgender people don't want to change who they are. Transgender people like their brains and do not consider the brain to be the part with the disorder. Can we prove this to you? No. But since it's our problem, and not yours, could you maybe give us the benefit of the doubt? I cannot help but feel like every time someone suggests that it might be a brain issue, it's primarily for their own benefit rather than for the transgender person. We do not feel like there is anything wrong with our brains, but because transgenderism is strange and body modification appears to most as offensive, it seems like you want it to be a problem with the brain.
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables.
Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views.
The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
I can have a propensity to addictive substance abuse, but its my upbringing and how my parents raise me, that determine if I succumb to substance abuse. While I can't really do all that much to make myself taller, I can most certainly choose my body composition through lifestyle modification (fitness initiative woohoo). Or my grandparents may have very short tempers, but if my parents raise me with firm discipline, but also grace and patience, I can learn remarkable self-control. In all these ways, we are shaped by our upbringing, we grow down the path we are lead along. Sometimes our parent's efforts can be ineffective to change us (e.g. I don't like showering too regularly as I'd always, incessantly get shit for not doing it enough = bad association, even if I wanna change), lol but actually there, their efforts shaped me, but in precisely the opposite way to what was desired.
Now, we've grown up with certain beliefs, but its also so critical to examine and test them, to clarify and verify what we truly believe. By that point, we're most likely out there independent of the environment we grew up in, and we have to seek our own answers.
I propose that our 'upbringing and the way we are lead' while we mature into our adult identity, is the defining mold of our identity. Now we can step out of what our parents taught, or neglected to teach, us, but that involves changing or expanding our beliefs with lots of soul searching, which I don't think people do enough of these days.
Ugh, I'm all over the place (that's what a week of exam stress does to my brain). Basically I'm making the claim gender identity/belief (sorry, I don't know enough politically correct [gender neutral] terminology, this is always a minefield for me), like other aspects of our identity/belief are very guided by our upbringing. For a long time, I didn't have an example of 'a real man' as a role model I could identify with (to model myself after, when learning 'what it is to be a man'), as I was only exposed to an overly egotistic macho stereotype, or effeminately homosexual. I'm glad I was able to find myself an alternative, walking alongside firm but caring and kind older guys.
The contentious bit: When young people are developing their identity/beliefs, they look to role models to teach them how to live and build their identities. I disprove of parents not taking that responsibility seriously enough, and don't adequately 'set the example'. Falling on either side of the spectrum, either not help them develop their sexual identity (not setting an adequate attainable example, not sparing thought to their child's needs/issues etc.), or having a 'yes honey, anything you say honey' attitude of letting the kid decide completely for themself without any guidance (when they most need guidance). [basically I'm annoyed how people are so quick to be liberal and paint norm-defying-kids as an hero, when IMO they haven't yet sufficiently grown into a sexual identity though are already making claims of ''I am a girl'' I'm still not quite there enough to say for myself 'I am a man', at x2.5 their age]
Yes there are notable flaws in my arguments, mainly that I'm expecting a universal perfect standard of role models, which is clearly impossible (fuck it I'm tired), and I haven't really dug into where our beliefs come from, should they change, and the line between guiding and projecting beliefs..
But what I'm getting at is: sexuality identity/belief is intrinsically linked with identity. Identity takes a very gradual time to build up, so with watchful and engaged rearing we can guide our kids' development. Completely free choice as to which beliefs to hold, comes once they're adult. I believe that the things I believe are true (obviously) and lead to a fulfilled and life-giving existence, and so how dare I not do my utmost to impart these values on my offspring. In blunt form: what do you say to the idea "Well my kids certainly won't turn out like that, because their sexual identity is a rearing thing, and to the best of my ability I am determined to raise them in what I see as a proper understanding of social/sexual identity."
~but it's their choice, not mine!~ its not very conceivable to embark upon a transition that contradicts your core values. "What it means to me [kid] to be a man?" teach 'em right!
But we can change our identities, though its really hard, and often we don't see it as 'worth it'. Let's say I want to get along better with people, but I'm snappy. I may never realize or recognize it, and even if I do, it may sit well with my current values/identity. But if I believe that ultimately I should change that about the way I interact with people, I can work at it, and possibly succeed. See this last bit is, I don't know, I don't know what this is doing here. Whatever, now, bed. Also, please understand that the way I express my opinions is sharpened over the internet. I'm socially aware enough, that if this were a real-life discussion with relevant parties (people with the same level of personal exposure to transgerderism as you guys), and direct social implications (gossip, people's opinion of me) on the line, I would tread so softly I wouldn't even say anything to talk about. That's why discussion on the internet is nice, because you can have a bit of distance, so you can present things in a more provocative way, to elicit a better and more pointed response [: Not knowing or seeing me IRL means you can't test what I say versus how I live, nor can you asses if I'm speaking harsher or milder than my actual beliefs, and so for what it's worth, you have to take what I say at face value as personal judgements are meaningless. And I get to write massive fucking walls of text, which people on FaceBook or IRL would NEVER have the care or attention span to deal with, but you're stuck with it cause I can't simplify my ideas any clearer.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define a binary situation. When I stated this, you took issue with the fact that I talked about computers, which behave in a binary way too, avoiding supporting your argument.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
I can't help but wonder at the people who claim those opposed to it are uninformed and ignorant. These people usually have very little to NO working knowledge in psychiatry at all, as well as little to no knowledge about the brain.
Except that it is the psychologists, ie: the most informed and knowledgeable people, who decided to make this change. The DSM V is a psychology manual.
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.
Aside from the alive/dead dichotomy (and it's difficult in some cases to tell the difference), that's complete nonsense. People are born with indeterminate genitalia, so no, you are not "either male, physically, or female". Sleep vs. awake is also not a strict dichotomy.
On December 05 2012 11:09 Thrasymachus725 wrote: I just don't want to be assaulted for calling someone "sir" or "ma'am" just because I guessed wrong on their gender. My brain sees a man, I call them sir. It's not something we think about, and it's certainly not something I want to ask every person I talk to just to make sure I am guessing correctly. "Excuse me, would you like to be referred to as a man or a woman?"
This is a spurious argument. Nobody is claiming that you should have to ask everyone their gender before calling them "sir" or "ma'am". What they're saying is that, if they correct you on it, you respect their answer.
On December 05 2012 09:21 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: I bet if it could be 'fixed' with drugs the APA would be fine with it being labeled a disorder. /cynical
I have read that some peoples brains are just female or male because of strange hormonal imbalances in the mothers womb. Though their body is male they think of things from a feminine point of view. Where that can sometimes take the manifestation of homosexuality or wanting to go fully fledged sex change is an interesting scientific discovery for the next generation to tackle most likely, though we are close.
This would be my point: Men who think more like a women, or behave in more feminine ways, are socially castigated and treated like crap by people. Thus, there is shame and guilt and hatred of their own body, so they seek to actually BECOME female in appearance, so that they can behave in those ways without being socially outcast.
Do you have any facts to back this notion up, or is it just an interesting idea you have? Because gender dysphoria has actual psychological research on it, supporting the idea that it's not merely someone wanting to change gender because of outside pressure. Do you have anything to support your position?
On December 05 2012 11:10 thisisstupid1 wrote: How about this for cynicism: As it is not labelled a disorder, it reduces the roadblocks to going into expensive plastic surgery to change their bodies.
Um, not really. The requirements necessary to determine gender dysphoria and thus decide whether SRS is necessary are not lowered simply because it's not a disorder anymore. Those requirements still remain; they're not even part of the DSM.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define a binary situation. When I stated this, you took issue with the fact that I talked about computers, which behave in a binary way too, avoiding supporting your argument.
Don't you have proof your argument is real?
I took issue with the fact that you took computers which are binary to compare them with humans who are not .
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define a binary situation. When I stated this, you took issue with the fact that I talked about computers, which behave in a binary way too, avoiding supporting your argument.
Don't you have proof your argument is real?
You are the one arguing with the majority view of the psychological community. Therefore you are the one who needs to prove that your argument is real.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end.
On December 05 2012 11:44 Crawdad wrote: How'd we go from transgender issues to non-binary and intersex issues?
I agree its a digression , but saying humans are binary causes alot of harm to anyone who isnt part of the main train of societies thinking such as transexuals transgenders or anyone who doesnt fall into the male or female category .
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog.
You are right it doesn't but their whole body changes except for genes , if their body changes to that of a female how does that not make them female? It was a natural change not surgery. There is a spectrum humans are notorious for the wide range of diversity we exhibit , so why is it so hard for you guys to grasp that sex and gender are also on a spectrum.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end.
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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: [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.
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end.
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Well obviously gender must therefore be trinary. lol...
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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: [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.
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end.
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Hmmm good point. I'd probably consider them both, but that does kinda conflict with my "one or the other" bit now doesn't it.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote: [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 .
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog. I'm still a male in the end.
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ?
Well obviously gender must therefore be trinary. lol...
There are also varying degrees of hermaphrodites thus a spectrum.
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I said right after that I never claimed it was a mental disorder to begin with. Apparently you just decided to use my argument as a base to jump off on your own tangent.
On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote: [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 .
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
The binary is still that the person is either "Male" or "Female". Even if they change from one to the other, they are still one or the other, and not inbetween. If you're biological male yet you look female, you're still male. I can dress up as a dog, it doesn't make me some inbetween dog-man because I now look like a dog.
You are right it doesn't but their whole body changes except for genes , if their body changes to that of a female how does that not make them female? It was a natural change not surgery. There is a spectrum humans are notorious for the wide range of diversity we exhibit , so why is it so hard for you guys to grasp that sex and gender are also on a spectrum.
If their body changed to being female they'd be female, which is just an agreement with what I'm saying. Granted, I don't recall hearing of a case where someone was a male, then suddenly changed into a woman, so I don't see this naturally happening. Not really sure what your point is here.
It's not a spectrum though. If it was you could define it as such, yet you're still defining them as male and female.
What else do i call them ? i was raised in a binary system to , doesn't mean its correct thinking.
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.
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.
Agreed , which brings it back to the original argument just cuase your body is one way doesn't mean thats the reality for you .
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.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
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: [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.
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
Is this existence of a term which is neither A nor B (or both A and B, or not-A and B, or not-B and A) a threat to the legitimacy of the binary opposition qua concept?
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.
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:
On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote: [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 .
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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
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.
You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause .
On December 05 2012 12:03 sam!zdat wrote: Is this existence of a term which is neither A nor B (or both A and B, or not-A and B, or not-B and A) a threat to the legitimacy of the binary opposition qua concept?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
A spectrum starts with two binary points
Male --------------Female
conceptualizing it would be like
Male ------Hermaphrodite -------Female with transexuals im not sure where to put them since gender wise they identify as female but sexually they could be a mix of either.
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
A spectrum starts with two binary points
Male --------------Female
conceptualizing it would be like
Male ------Hermaphrodite -------Female with transexuals im not sure where to put them since gender wise they identify as female but sexually they could be a mix of either.
ah interesting
see you if you can apply the greimas square to it
look around the web and see, I bet my left nut lots of people have talked about this question in these terms
On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people).
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote: [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?
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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
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.
You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause .
No, I wasn't. Unless you consider going through science and bio and comp and psych classes "socialized to believe in binary things".
Things only exist in two possible states for Schroedinger's cat. Try again.
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.
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white.
We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way.
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote: [quote]
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote: [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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth.
He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote: [quote]
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote: [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 .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
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.
You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause .
No, I wasn't. Unless you consider going through science and bio and comp and psych classes "socialized to believe in binary things".
Things only exist in two possible states for Schroedinger's cat. Try again.
Well its not feelings i have taken sex and gender anthro courses in university , im basically paraphrasing im aware of this.
You realize school curriculum's are written by the government who want to do nothing more then socialize us and make good citizens of us, you havent proven your point either or explained to to me adequately.
Read the second paragraph in the article ffs i doubt you even read it. Remeber these are both models as someone who took science i would expect you to understand that and just cause i follow a different model does not mean that i am required to prove it to you.
"The Gender Spectrum Western culture has come to view gender as a binary concept, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female. When a child is born, a quick glance between the legs determines the gender label that the child will carry for life. But even if gender is to be restricted to basic biology, a binary concept still fails to capture the rich variation observed. Rather than just two distinct boxes, biological gender occurs across a continuum of possibilities. This spectrum of anatomical variations by itself should be enough to disregard the simplistic notion of only two genders.
But beyond anatomy, there are multiple domains defining gender. In turn, these domains can be independently characterized across a range of possibilities. Instead of the static, binary model produced through a solely physical understanding of gender, a far more rich texture of biology, gender expression, and gender identity intersect in multidimensional array of possibilities. Quite simply, the gender spectrum represents a more nuanced, and ultimately truly authentic model of human gender."
On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote: [quote]
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
[quote]
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself.
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth.
He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.>
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote: when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
you misunderstand mentally and emotionally they identify as female for them its changing their body to match their view of themselves. Its like being a female but born with a penis wouldn't that seem wrong to you ?
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote: when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
If you are so far down your rabbit hole that you won't even accept trans women as women, how can we take your question seriously?
It would be better if we all just ignored posts like this. Personally, I will let the mods deal with it. It's obviously a one liner that is meant to be offensive and not add to the discussion. There's no reason to reply.
On December 05 2012 12:15 shinosai wrote: Wittgenstein
Hmm, yes, I'm not sure I agree with old Ludwig on this point but that would be a question for another time. At any rate, as far as applied semiotics goes I'm happy to point people to the best tool in the biz and let them go their own way, this is not a topic in particular which is near and dear to my heart
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote: when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
if a man chopped his penis off to become a woman, that would definitely be an issue. however, since that's not what transsexualism is (transsexualism is when a WOMAN is born with the sex of a man and vice versa), I don't see what your point has to do with the topic at hand.
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote: when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
if a man chopped his penis off to become a woman, that would definitely be an issue. however, since that's not what transsexualism is (transsexualism is when a WOMAN is born with the sex of a man and vice versa), I don't see what your point has to do with the topic at hand.
Lawyer-ed. thats what i was trying to say to him but less eloquently
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.
On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote: [quote]
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary .
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth.
He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.>
science hasn't determined it as factual. Provide the proof. It's still psychology which requires people to express their "personal belief and feelings", and then correlate that to internal physical parameters of the human body.
As long as it is like that, it will never be factual proof.
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white.
We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way.
There can't be "some other way". people die without oxygen. people live with oxygen. The universe itself imposes binary logic on everything within it
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.
You never actually argue about things at hand ever .... you just want to say peiople are stupid and wrong and you do this all the time. Also when things are constantly changing they are not binary . I don't understand how the brain works but neurons making different connections each time is not binary .
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?
On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote: [quote]
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around .
You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white.
Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point.
Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this.
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth.
He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.>
science hasn't determined it as factual. Provide the proof. It's still psychology which requires people to express their "personal belief and feelings", and then correlate that to internal physical parameters of the human body.
As long as it is like that, it will never be factual proof.
Sex is not psychological gender may be , psychology is the study of the mind which is still not understood the human body constantly changes in your life .an example that is not binary
Young - adult -middle aged -senior
Why don't you give us articles and proof that proves your right ?
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables.
Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views.
The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
For whatever it's worth, I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread.
Life has led me to understand homosexuality and my own sexuality to an appreciable degree, but in the past few years I have become more curious about the subject outside of those confines. This thread was an excellent resource.
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?
Thank you once again , he ats liek we are all wrong and basically states spectrums don't exist in regards to sex and gender
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote: so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum"
if there are no binaries, and only spectra
how does one conceptualize them?
edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square
edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white.
We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way.
There can't be "some other way". people die without oxygen. people live with oxygen. The universe itself imposes binary logic on everything within it
Actually, yea, we could've made the binary some other way. We could have made the binary between young and old. Death and birth merely relate to how close one is to either of these paradigms, much like black and white could be defined in terms of how close they are to red or purple.
State x and y - when a person has x much oxygen or y much oxygen. Being dead and alive in relation to how close they are to this paradigm. There's nothing necessary about the paradigm of dead and alive - only that we have a paradigm with which to relate them to something. The relation is what matters. Now, dead and alive might be a much more useful paradigm than state x and y, but it's not necessary. That was Wittgenstein's point. It can be used on ANY binary. All you need is a paradigm with which to compare things to.
Look, being dead can just be defined as being closer to state x than state y. No problemo.
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables.
Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views.
The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables.
Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views.
The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of
That is not the difference between a theory and a law
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.
Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person.
I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms.
So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay.
I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables.
Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views.
The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of
That is not the difference between a theory and a law
Acceptance and tolerance is significant to my happiness. I am happy that transgender people now are not considered mentally ill as homosexuals once were. I am happy for people who get to be themselves if it doesn't harm others. Gay bashing and transgender bashing is useless hate, and I do not accept people in my life who partake in such things. I'm also sick of people complaining about how posts must be "liberal or PC" to be accepted on TeamLiquid.
I have always felt that controversial opinions are absolutely okay on teamliquid! It is fine to have an unpopular opinion. It is not fine to disrespect someone or a group of individuals. You don't have to be politically correct or a liberal to have respect and morals along with an educated opinion.
I support homosexuals and transgenders. Be who you want to be, as long as your not an asshole or hurting others. I think that is reasonable.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Are there a lot of people here that feel like this is a personal issue for them? More than 3?
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote: Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists.
OK, time for some definitions.
A specific, well-defined system can be classified as a "binary" system if the system can only exist in two discrete, well-defined states. The system can only ever be A or B. It can't be both and it can't be neither. Every system that is in state A must be indistinguishable (in any meaningful way) from every other system in state A; same goes for systems in state B.
A specific, well-defined system can be classified as "digital" if the number of states that the system can be in is finite. It may be 1, it may be 2, it may be 50,000,000,000,000, but as long as the number of states is finite, it is a digital system. Binary systems are digital by definition, but digital systems are not necessarily binary.
If you disagree with this definitions, I don't give a shit. That's what they actually mean, so that's what I'm going to call them.
Computers are digital systems, but they are not binary systems. Computers use binary numerical computation systems and boolean logic operations. But when taken as a whole system, a computer is not a binary system. It can exist in more than two states.
Now that we're all on the same page, let's look at your claims:
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote: Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary.
That's not binary. Memories, even by your own logic, can exist in 3 states: "half-remembered", "not remembered at all", or "fully remembered". Whether memories are digital or not is a different, unknown question. It depends on whether you consider the brain to be a digital system.
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote: 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.
This... is a non-sequitur. You originally stated "Neurons either fire or dont fire." That is wrong; neurons fire in degrees. Now, you're talking about an aggregation of neurons firing, which is a different system from a single neuron. You've changed what system you're talking about.
It's not entirely clear what this system even is. Is it whether your hand is on the hot place or not? Is it the number of neurons firing to keep it there?
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote: Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off.
No, they aren't. Gene expression can be partial. And I don't mean that they can be inhibited by various factors. I mean they can be partially expressed. There are degrees of gene expression, which cause different quantities of proteins to be produced.
Gene expression is not a binary system. Whether it is a digital one depends, since biological chemistry is based on thermodynamic statistics, not certainty.
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote: 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.
Again, digital and binary are not the same thing. A system of "marines vs. zerglings" will yield some specific, digital state. But it is not binary because there are more than 2 possible answers.
Just because a system is digital does not mean it is not on a spectrum. Remember, a light spectrum is quantized too; light spectra are digital. That doesn't mean that there aren't a hell of a lot of different wavelengths.
Something being a spectrum does not mean unquantifiable and unknowable. It simply means that there are many subtle gradations instead of having a small number of few states.
On December 05 2012 13:03 LarJarsE wrote: You don't have to be politically correct or a liberal to have respect and morals along with an educated opinion.
This is something that has always bugged me about people who talk down about being "politically correct". Political correctness is all about having "respect and morals along with an educated opinion." What's happened is that assholes have demonized the term to the point where even people who are politically correct don't think that they are.
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.
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 13:25 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 13:25 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 13:20 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 13:25 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 13:25 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.
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 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 12:35 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 13:30 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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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 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?
[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?
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.
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 13:58 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 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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
To be honest it's a bit over my head, but this seems straight forward enough:
"ANIMAL experiments and observations in human brains have convincingly shown that sexual differentiation not only concerns the genitalia but also the brain . . . "
That statement is supported by 17 separate citations in the article.
Edit: haha shinosai's post blows mine out of the water. But yeah, there's a TON of evidence out there. Just use google, it's a powerful tool.
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?
They're simply changing it to say the persons identity isn't the disorder, it's the horrible depression of being incongruent. I think it's hardly a normalizing move, but gives the disorder a better chance to stand up in a medical insurance environment, and in regards to lawmakers.
But I still doubt law makers or insurance companies will be changing anytime soon anyways.
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?
They're simply changing it to say the persons identity isn't the disorder, it's the horrible depression of being incongruent. I think it's hardly a normalizing move, but gives the disorder a better chance to stand up in a medical insurance environment, and in regards to lawmakers.
But I still doubt law makers or insurance companies will be changing anytime soon anyways.
Yea, probably not. Insurance companies will just label it all cosmetic. I mean, can you imagine if insurance companies were required to pay for srs? They don't even want to pay for a birth control pill, and that stuff is cheap... And it will still be just as difficult to get the treatment needed. On the plus side, though, I think the change will help in legal battles where employers are legally allowed to fire transsexuals for expressing their gender identities.
Regardless of whether or not you think transitioning is legitimate, I hope we can all at least agree that it's pretty fucked up to fire someone for doing what their psychiatrist has medically recommended.
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.
Hypothetical situation. If you were born with weights in your legs that grew consistently with your body and you could never run or do athletic things, wouldn't you want to get that fixed? Would you still claim that it was a problem with your mind and not your body? Perhaps an odd example, but it fits well enough.
I know you're probably going to respond with something to the effect of "that would be an actual defect and it's not the same thing," but the thing is (and this is coming from someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria), that desire to get your legs fixed that you would feel is exactly how transsexual people feel. I realize that it's hard for you to understand because you've never been there, but the best way I can describe it is that to a transsexual, their birth sex is a physical defect in the same way that other physical defects may effect other people. Except, in the case of transsexuals, it's even worse because they don't just want to get that defect fixed; they need to in order to be happy.
Again, I know it's hard to wrap your head around because you haven't been there, but let me try another way: Let's say that your level of comfort with your current gender (I don't know if you're male or female) stays the same, but you were born with the sex (that is, physical sex characteristics, both primary and secondary) of the opposite gender. Imagine yourself in that situation. Can you truly say that your desire to be perceived as the gender you feel comfortable as is a problem with your mind?
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).
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.
Autistic people aren't denied rights because dickwads in the government think they are weird and abnormal, trans-people are.
As nice as this sounds this could actually be a bad thing for gay people in countries where homosexuality is banned. In many countries homosexuality is punishable by death, while claiming transexuality can get them an insanity plea. The weirdest is probably Iran, where the punishment for homosexuality is basically a forced sex change, or death(see documentary: Be Like Others).
There are a lot of people still claiming that being trans is just a matter of thinking "well I like dresses therefore I must be woman", so I'm going to repost this. For all those people, it really isn't, but thanks for telling me what my own thoughts and opinions are.
On December 04 2012 18:21 Twilight Sparkle wrote: It's not about gender roles. Everything you said about what gender really is is absolutely correct. There's no reason that a man can't wear makeup and a dress other than ridiculous social bullshit telling him that it's somehow emasculating. But that doesn't have anything to do with transsexualism. Being trans is primarily about your physical sex; there are plenty of butch trans women and effeminate trans men out there. I myself am totally happy acting in a way which society dictates is masculine. I sit around on the internet watching Starcraft, playing DotA, swearing at people, not socialising much or having any close friendships. I make dick jokes constantly, watched the shit out of The Avengers and have no interest in chick flicks, rom-coms, whatever, I have no particular interest in skirts and dresses or makeup or pink, I do watch MLP but that's a show for guys nowadays. I'm not trans because I want to do 'girl stuff', it's because, for some reason that nobody, including me, truly understands, on some basic level some part of my brain just requires that I be female. Which means doing all the nerdy guy stuff that I do right now except I'm physically female and people call me she. That's about it.
That being said, there are plenty of trans women who act in a feminine way too, and trans men who act masculine, just like there are plenty of cis (ie, not trans) men and women who act in accordance to their gender roles. A majority, in fact. But there are also a decent number of trans people like me who don't fit into the gender role of their preferred sex, so saying that we all just need to abandon society's ideas of what men/women should do doesn't work.
On December 05 2012 14:57 Twilight Sparkle wrote: There are a lot of people still claiming that being trans is just a matter of thinking "well I like dresses therefore I must be woman", so I'm going to repost this. For all those people, it really isn't, but thanks for telling me what my own thoughts and opinions are.
On December 04 2012 18:21 Twilight Sparkle wrote: It's not about gender roles. Everything you said about what gender really is is absolutely correct. There's no reason that a man can't wear makeup and a dress other than ridiculous social bullshit telling him that it's somehow emasculating. But that doesn't have anything to do with transsexualism. Being trans is primarily about your physical sex; there are plenty of butch trans women and effeminate trans men out there. I myself am totally happy acting in a way which society dictates is masculine. I sit around on the internet watching Starcraft, playing DotA, swearing at people, not socialising much or having any close friendships. I make dick jokes constantly, watched the shit out of The Avengers and have no interest in chick flicks, rom-coms, whatever, I have no particular interest in skirts and dresses or makeup or pink, I do watch MLP but that's a show for guys nowadays. I'm not trans because I want to do 'girl stuff', it's because, for some reason that nobody, including me, truly understands, on some basic level some part of my brain just requires that I be female. Which means doing all the nerdy guy stuff that I do right now except I'm physically female and people call me she. That's about it.
That being said, there are plenty of trans women who act in a feminine way too, and trans men who act masculine, just like there are plenty of cis (ie, not trans) men and women who act in accordance to their gender roles. A majority, in fact. But there are also a decent number of trans people like me who don't fit into the gender role of their preferred sex, so saying that we all just need to abandon society's ideas of what men/women should do doesn't work.
On December 05 2012 14:57 Twilight Sparkle wrote: There are a lot of people still claiming that being trans is just a matter of thinking "well I like dresses therefore I must be woman", so I'm going to repost this. For all those people, it really isn't, but thanks for telling me what my own thoughts and opinions are.
On December 04 2012 18:21 Twilight Sparkle wrote: It's not about gender roles. Everything you said about what gender really is is absolutely correct. There's no reason that a man can't wear makeup and a dress other than ridiculous social bullshit telling him that it's somehow emasculating. But that doesn't have anything to do with transsexualism. Being trans is primarily about your physical sex; there are plenty of butch trans women and effeminate trans men out there. I myself am totally happy acting in a way which society dictates is masculine. I sit around on the internet watching Starcraft, playing DotA, swearing at people, not socialising much or having any close friendships. I make dick jokes constantly, watched the shit out of The Avengers and have no interest in chick flicks, rom-coms, whatever, I have no particular interest in skirts and dresses or makeup or pink, I do watch MLP but that's a show for guys nowadays. I'm not trans because I want to do 'girl stuff', it's because, for some reason that nobody, including me, truly understands, on some basic level some part of my brain just requires that I be female. Which means doing all the nerdy guy stuff that I do right now except I'm physically female and people call me she. That's about it.
That being said, there are plenty of trans women who act in a feminine way too, and trans men who act masculine, just like there are plenty of cis (ie, not trans) men and women who act in accordance to their gender roles. A majority, in fact. But there are also a decent number of trans people like me who don't fit into the gender role of their preferred sex, so saying that we all just need to abandon society's ideas of what men/women should do doesn't work.
I can identify with this post. c:
Yea, of course. I think that's because most people identify themselves as having both masculine and feminine aspects to themselves. Me, for example, when I deal with men I am very masculine. Perhaps because I've never really gotten along with them and I find "guy talk" to be rather annoying, I always talk to them on a very superficial, non-emotional level (I identify this as a masculine way of communicating, as opposed to the more feminine way of emotional connections, etc). Decision making - masculine again. I deliberate and make a choice - I don't spend three hours trying to pick out the perfect zucchini squash. But then I also like makeup and looking pretty. So... yea.
Gender expression has a great deal of variance. But whether one identifies as more male or female is really up to how the person feels about themselves.
How does a trans person "know" they're trans? Ultimately we experiment and figure out what "feels" right. And ultimately, this feeling is never going to live up to the proof that everyone thinks they need to have, because we can't give it to them.
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.
Intersex studies doesn't prove anything, as their sex is scientifically pretty hard to define to begin with. You could even argue that they would be both genders. Also, it's pretty far-fetched to make such grand claims based on a few studies with questionable scientific methods. Just because they failed to predict the best outcome, it doesn't prove anything. Besides, if they are supposed to be both genders, it's only natural that they would feel incomplete regardless of which gender was picked during the reconstruction surgery. Also, you don't know how a child would react after a performed surgery at a young age. Even if they don't remember it, it can leave small traces here and there, that might bother them for ages. It's also very likely that the environment can lead to confusion in such a extreme case. If the parents know about the surgery, they might overcompensate the childs upbringing in certain ways and overall act strangely around the child. This is something that they notice. My point is, there are so many factors here that you can't come to any conclusions.
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.
To be honest it's a bit over my head, but this seems straight forward enough:
"ANIMAL experiments and observations in human brains have convincingly shown that sexual differentiation not only concerns the genitalia but also the brain . . . "
That statement is supported by 17 separate citations in the article.
Edit: haha shinosai's post blows mine out of the water. But yeah, there's a TON of evidence out there. Just use google, it's a powerful tool.
Here they have studied specific neuron totals in different groups, but there are some issues. The sample size is very small. The samples seems to point towards a similarity between trans female and female, in this specific case, but the fact that they found a similarity doesn't prove anything, unless they can prove that these neurons have an effect on gender identity. It's possible that these neurons tend to be lower in feminine individuals, including effeminate men. I know that hormonal levels and other stuff can differ quite drastically between individuals of the same sex, and typically it's the effeminate men that choose to be a trans woman, so seeing results like this is pretty much what you would expect. It's also possible that hormonal treatment had an effect, something they mentioned, and didn't see it having an effect, although they didn't really do enough testing on it.
Like I've been pointing out before, it's important to consider the factor of the environment and social stigma and stereotypes having an effect. In fact I'm convinced that ppl who are more alike the opposite gender than average, on certain hormonal levels and other things, are more likely to go down this route. What I disagree with is the concept of gender, as a construct that would be different to X and Y and physical characteristics.
On December 05 2012 05:47 Thorakh wrote: It doesn't even matter whether gender is genetical, a social contruct or you name it and whether being trans is a mental disorder.
All that matters is that the person in question feels he is a woman and that undergoing a MtF transition will greatly improve his quality of life and make him a complete woman (just without the uterus). If he gets happy from turning into a she, who the FUCK are you to deny him that happiness? You do not get affected by it in any way, shape or form nor does it harm anyone (and therefore cannot be morally wrong).
(obviously the same applies for FtM)
You argument while well-meaning is narrow-minded. Of course, I am no one to forbid transsexual transition (nor do I want to) but it doesn't mean I should refrained to judge the actions of transsexuals based on my own personal philosophy. Philosophy is (or should) be a personal process about how you think people should live their life (id est something that applies in general)
You are free to believe whatever you want but if you want to judge a person who wants to acquire happiness and improve his/her quality of life enormously (in a way that does not affect you or anyone else) as a bad person, that simply makes you a dick and wrong.
On December 05 2012 16:14 ninini wrote: Intersex studies doesn't prove anything, as their sex is scientifically pretty hard to define to begin with.
Isn't that exactly why it DOES prove that those definitions are flawed?
On December 05 2012 16:14 ninini wrote: You could even argue that they would be both genders.
It depends on how the person identifies. Once again, many intersex people identify as men or women, although I am sure that some of them identify as non-binary or "both genders". It is not a certainty, and you are right to say that there are many factors involved.
On December 05 2012 16:14 ninini wrote: It's possible that these neurons tend to be lower in feminine individuals, including effeminate men. I know that hormonal levels and other stuff can differ quite drastically between individuals of the same sex, and typically it's the effeminate men that choose to be a trans woman, so seeing results like this is pretty much what you would expect.
You are so wrong here, it's insane. First of all, nobody chooses to be a trans woman. Second of all, "effeminate men" are just that: MEN who exhibit feminine traits. Likewise, trans women are not always effeminate. There is little correlation between stereotypical gender roles and gender identity, and there is NO correlation between gender identity and sexuality.
On December 05 2012 16:14 ninini wrote: What I disagree with is the concept of gender, as a construct that would be different to X and Y and physical characteristics.
Gender is different from physical characteristics, because those physical characteristics only define a person's SEX, which is different from gender. Most medical communities agree with this distinction.
On December 05 2012 14:55 InvalidID wrote: As nice as this sounds this could actually be a bad thing for gay people in countries where homosexuality is banned. In many countries homosexuality is punishable by death, while claiming transexuality can get them an insanity plea. The weirdest is probably Iran, where the punishment for homosexuality is basically a forced sex change, or death(see documentary: Be Like Others).
Since when did Islamic countries follow laws adopted in liberal western ones? (OK... Iraq & Afghanistan after the yanks bombed the crap out of them and installed puppet governments but i digress...) Most are still stuck circa 1300 AD.Death penalty for homosexuality, stoning women for adultery = my point proven.
On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote: evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was.
Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels?
behavior changes with hormones (among other things). human beings were acting a certain way before they could articulate it. or, labels were already there before people learned to utter them.
Edit: you're arguing about why would i call a tree a tree, or i don't get it. in the end it doesn't really mater how you call it but you have to call it something 'cause its already there/it exists.
No, this has nothing to do with trees, as trees play no active role in their own identification. Like I've already said, a major component of gender deconstruction is the idea individuals have the right to be labeled in accordance with their own gender identification or lack there of, not in strict adherence to outdated concepts of female and male appearance.
i was talking about the root of the issue or the place it all started so to speak, but you talk about the definitions people made up for other different people, to put it somehow generally. those are only theoretical constructs with no innate value to the person whom you're categorizing as such. ps: i've no dea how rights fit into all of this. legal rights?, to be called "names"?.
If a person with a penis feels like a woman and wants to be referred to as such, that is their right, something previously considered taboo.
would that mean that before i could address to someone, anyone, i should skip past the appearances and straight up ask them if they desire to be talked to as if he/she was feeling the other way arround?. sounds like a lot of hassle just for ... theory sake.
Last time I checked, striking up a conversation with someone generally doesn't require knowing their gender. Unless you're propositioning them for a sexual/romantic relationship, what you have to say should be appropriate whether they're male or female. And if it isn't... that's a personal problem you need to correct in general. You shouldn't speak significantly differently to men or women. So you shouldn't be needing to ask someone what their gender is either way.
Let's say you meet someone. This person looks more-or-less male; no noticeable breasts, their voice is borderline, and their hair is cut short. If you then refer to this person as "he", but the person corrects you and tells you that she's female... would you actually argue with them? Would you ask them to drop their pants on the spot and show proof of vagina? Or would you simply accept it, maybe apologize for the error, and move on?
How would this situation be any different if they actually had a penis at that moment? Unless of course you would be so crass as to ask them to drop trou and prove their sex.
well obviously i would not have them drop their pants and i would also not argue with them about it but they should also not be surprised or offended if i'll seem/look puzzled/doubtful (to say the least) when they'll correct me; and thats not because i think they're in the wrong but because they are not like me, because they're diferent, because i'm different.
it's at least intriguing and it makes one wonder as to why it happens, evolutionary speaking. does it have a purpose or it'll completely disappear in the future.
On December 05 2012 19:07 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Since when did Islamic countries follow laws adopted in liberal western ones? (OK... Iraq & Afghanistan after the yanks bombed the crap out of them and installed puppet governments but i digress...) Most are still stuck circa 1300 AD.Death penalty for homosexuality, stoning women for adultery = my point proven.
InvalidID was probably specifically referring to Iran, where transition is often seen as an alternative to being homosexual. This is an inherently flawed view, as (once again) gender identity has no correlation to sexuality.
Ninini's approach to this is horrible: presented with evidence that transgender people are overwhelmingly unhappy with their 'condition', he says it's no big deal, they shouldn't whine so much, and if the same thing would happen to him he'd shrug it off. It reminds me of some billionaire pondering: "being poor isn't so bad, right? you still can afford, like, food?" He should look up the word privilege in the dictionary.
On December 05 2012 08:12 ninini wrote: I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
Here's an open question to everybody who sees themselves as trans. You're saying that you feel like a woman/man, and that it has nothing to do with stereotypes. But if that's the case, what is it about you that makes you feel like you're female/male? I mean, can you tell me the points that your mind is making, to prove that you're a specific gender? I honestly did try asking myself that question, and I haven't been able to convince myself that I'm either gender. That's why I reject that gender and sex would be different. Please show me your line of thinking, or I will never be able to understand you. So far, noone in this thread have been able to convince me that there is such a thing as a mental gender, that isn't defined by your sex.
I believe that the majority of us don't like their own body, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with it. If a woman doesn't like her tiny boobs, even to the point that it leads to depressions, does it mean that there's something wrong with them? No, it just means that they were made that way. Now, if she wants to enlarge them, then she can go ahead if it will make her happy, but this concept that there's something wrong with your body if you don't like it, or even hate it, is pure BS. The issue is in the head, not the body.
It's easy to claim that gender = sex for people who only experienced them in alignment. To cis people it may seem like being a certain gender doesn't have a feel to it - and yes, it's a lot like breathing in that sense I guess. Being able to breathe does not make you happy, but not being able to is suffocating.
In retrospect I vividly remember having female self-images as a kid (I didn't see them as "self-images" back then), and due to all the shame I tried to repress them. I didn't ever really feel like I was a male, rather I was feeling impersonal, genderless, dissociated from my body due to having to bury or externalize my self-image onto others (which always led to disappointment since I couldn't live through them). Female pronouns and terms always felt "right" to me (no other way to describe it) while male ones felt wrong, inaccurate. I didn't choose to feel that way about them. I had very long phases of denial and trying to work against it, but I couldn't change my intrinsic, subconscious feelings.
I always secretly identified more with female characters from books/movies, with songs about girls, etc. despite being really ashamed of it. I didn't know why I did it, but I used to pray to God every night as a kid wanting to become a girl; I was unaware of sexual stuff so I thought that was like the most innocent thing to wish for, so I was really depressed every morning. I thought every boy desperately wanted to be a girl (how could have I known, it was obviously not a question that one could ask from others) but they just accepted their fate. So I tried too, but it never worked, it just kept worsening.
I used to take long walks while asking from myself "Could there be an illness that someone is the wrong sex? But it doesn't make any sense for there to be one.." (being unaware of possible genetics/hormonal birth defects' effect on sexually dimorphic neuroanatomical parts back then) and a lot of severe emotional pain about how I'm not getting a second chance at being a girl.
I didn't know why I felt that way, I didn't want to, I tried my best at being a boy/man and I just got suicidally miserable about it. I tried to let my sex dictate my gender, but my subconscious never agreed with it. Ever since I consciously accepted my subconscious gender and I'm on my way to transitioning, I feel infinitely happier than ever before.
I could say that in the same way people can't understand why someone would want to be the opposite sex, if I only took my own case, I could also say that I don't understand why every male doesn't also feel gender dysphoria and why trans men (FtM) transition, but I don't look at it like that, I accept others' gender identities despite the fact that I'll never know what it feels like to identify as a guy (nor do I ever want to find out, I'm perfectly happy having the identity of a girl) or as non-binary (genderqueer, bigender, agender, genderfluid, etc).
Sure, on a physiological level, the disorder can theoretically be taken as a neuroanatomical one, that it's in the brain (but even then, if you take the brain as the base instead of the rest of the body, then it's the body that is not the compatible one with that neuroanatomy), but if there's no cure for the neuroanatomical disorder (and even if there was, most of us wouldn't want our identity that is the dearest, most important part of us to be taken away against our will), then the only other option is to alter the body instead to match the brain, so it practically is a bodily disorder. There also is a difference between "mental disorder" and "neuroanatomical disorder". The mental disorder part of it is just the depression, otherwise we're functional people, while the whole "gender identity disorder" being previously classified as a "mental disorder" making us look in many people's eyes at the professional level as insane and our gender just made up in our heads and then probably they can think we have other "severe mental issues" too if we have that, and then they can fire us for being insane...
And it's not comparable to body dismorphic disorder; without a hyperbole, I'd rather be the ugliest woman than the most handsome man. Of course I care about looks, but my gender is the most important thing to me. I cannot live as a man for the rest of my life without being really miserable about it. Gender dysphoria never goes away, it actually just even exponentially worsens with all the regrets about all the more years lost from some of the most beautiful youthful years had one been living them as their identified sex.
Also here's an excerpt from Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl about your question:
It became obvious to me that I actually wanted to be a girl, and that, on some level, it felt right.
Trying to translate these subconscious experiences into conscious thought is a messy business. All of the words available in the English language completely fail to accurately capture or convey my personal understanding of these events. For example, if I were to say that I "saw" myself as female, or "knew" myself to be a girl, I would be denying the fact that I was consciously aware of my physical maleness at all times. And saying that I "wished" or "wanted" to be a girl erases how much being female made sense to me, how it felt right on the deepest, most profound level of my being. I could say that I "felt" like a girl, but that would give the false impression that I knew how other girls (and other boys) felt. And if I were to say I was "supposed to be" a girl, or that I "should have been born" female, it would imply that I had some sort of cosmic insight into the grand scheme of the universe, which I most certainly did not.
Perhaps the best way to describe how my subconscious sex feels to me is to say that it seems as if, on some level, my brain expects my body to be female. Indeed there is some evidence to suggest that our brains have an intrinsic understanding of what sex our bodies should be.
What purpose does gender have if we can just decide on our gender and change ourselves accordingly down the road?
Do whatever you want, it's your own body. I don't think it's my right to stop you.
What I will say is that there are large communities in both gender-factions that will not accept a transgendered person. In changing your gender you ostricise yourself. I find that a transgendered person, as far as public perception is concerned, obscures their gender in their transition, rather than defining it more clearly.
On December 05 2012 22:02 HoLe wrote: I find that a transgendered person, as far as public perception is concerned, obscures their gender in their transition, rather than defining it more clearly.
Then you completely misunderstand what is it actually like, or what it means to transgenders when they "Transition"
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
They can right now. There isn't any rule against it. However I'm sure that in some places, the people who judge applicants for adoption might be prejudiced against transgender people, and might go out of their way to find a reason to deny the adoption.
On December 05 2012 22:02 HoLe wrote: What purpose does gender have if we can just decide on our gender and change ourselves accordingly down the road?
Do whatever you want, it's your own body. I don't think it's my right to stop you.
What I will say is that there are large communities in both gender-factions that will not accept a transgendered person. In changing your gender you ostricise yourself. I find that a transgendered person, as far as public perception is concerned, obscures their gender in their transition, rather than defining it more clearly.
You should stop making it appear as though people just wake up one day and say "Gee, I weighed all the pros and cons, but I've figured out that I'd actually rather be a girl than a boy." Transgenders (and homosexuals for that matter. And by extension, heterosexuals) don't decide to be the way they are. They just are what they are.
On December 05 2012 22:02 HoLe wrote: What purpose does gender have if we can just decide on our gender and change ourselves accordingly down the road?
Do whatever you want, it's your own body. I don't think it's my right to stop you.
What I will say is that there are large communities in both gender-factions that will not accept a transgendered person. In changing your gender you ostricise yourself. I find that a transgendered person, as far as public perception is concerned, obscures their gender in their transition, rather than defining it more clearly.
You should stop making it appear as though people just wake up one day and say "Gee, I weighed all the pros and cons, but I've figured out that I'd actually rather be a girl than a boy." Transgenders (and homosexuals for that matter. And by extension, heterosexuals) don't decide to be the way they are. They just are what they are.
Yep. It's pretty much a life of death question for many--it was for me. Either I transition, or live through a lifetime of deep depression, or kill myself. And I assure you those options were thoroughly explored before I settled on the prior.
On December 05 2012 22:02 HoLe wrote: What purpose does gender have if we can just decide on our gender and change ourselves accordingly down the road?
Do whatever you want, it's your own body. I don't think it's my right to stop you.
What I will say is that there are large communities in both gender-factions that will not accept a transgendered person. In changing your gender you ostricise yourself. I find that a transgendered person, as far as public perception is concerned, obscures their gender in their transition, rather than defining it more clearly.
You should stop making it appear as though people just wake up one day and say "Gee, I weighed all the pros and cons, but I've figured out that I'd actually rather be a girl than a boy." Transgenders (and homosexuals for that matter. And by extension, heterosexuals) don't decide to be the way they are. They just are what they are.
Yep. It's pretty much a life of death question for many--it was for me. Either I transition, or live through a lifetime of deep depression, or kill myself. And I assure you those options were thoroughly explored before I settled on the prior.
Same. It's really terrible that there's no way out of that triple bind. But then, if the option existed to give me the identity of a guy, I would never choose that.
On December 05 2012 22:02 HoLe wrote:
What I will say is that there are large communities in both gender-factions that will not accept a transgendered person. In changing your gender you ostricise yourself
It's not my fault that I have a medical condition beyond my control that others don't accept me for. Also it's not our gender that we change, that's the only thing that will remain the same.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
There already haven't been any laws against it before. Also, for instance, us lesbian trans women in relationships with cis (non-trans) women can still have kids of our own blood together with our partner either before hormone replacement therapy or via spermbanking. Same goes for gay trans men in relationships with cis men, or straight trans men in relationships with straight trans women, but then it's an extreme sacrifice on the trans man's part to carry out the child, hence him feeling even more trapped inside his body and having a harder time to pass as male during, and for a while after giving birth.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
There have also been cases where trans parents' children looked up to their trans parent(s) and said that they are proud of their parent(s) for having the courage to become themselves, it inspires them to be brave and it also made them more open-minded.
Bullying and prejudice happen in the case of having homosexual parents too.
And just who is to judge that a trans person cannot be a good parent, or by them merely existing, their kid would not develop well. You could say the same then about homosexual parents regarding identity problems, or about single parents, and regarding getting fucked up, I think most would take having a loving and caring MtF mother/second mother over an alcoholic, abusive father. But then, they wouldn't have the perspective of the latter case to compare it to, but as they'd grow older they'd understand.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
only if you think that it's someone's right to adopt a kid.
what are the definitions of a disorder? that's something that i think is of utmost importance to the topic honestly. i mean i dont have much problem with transsexuals, but it seems to me that having something where you need to take hormones, often surgery, and other such provisions to be happy seems pretty.. disorderly.
On December 06 2012 00:49 FrankWalls wrote: what are the definitions of a disorder? that's something that i think is of utmost importance to the topic honestly. i mean i dont have much problem with transsexuals, but it seems to me that having something where you need to take hormones, often surgery, and other such provisions to be happy seems pretty.. disorderly.
But is it a disorder of the mind, or of the body? Just as one could argue that the body is the basis, one could just as easily argue that the mind is the basis, and in that case it becomes a physical handicap instead of a mental disorder.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
only if you think that it's someone's right to adopt a kid.
No, only if you think that transgender people have just as much right at adopting as black people in respect to the bullying/prejudice argument.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Then the issue here is the stigma in the first place, not how it effects the child.
Not to mention, why should anyone know the childs parents are trans? You seem to be making wild assumptions without really having any knowledge on the matter. EDIT: Oh, and you're old fashioned.
I would like to play devil's advocate a bit. before I do I want to state that other people going through gender transitions does not affect me in the slightest, so as far as I am concerned trans sexuals can do whatever they want.
My first point: I have to wonder if trans sexuality is a body image problem? Being unhappy with yourself is a part of life. Obviously there are degrees of unhappiness, but most people just get on with life. There will be good times and bad times, some months I will think highly of myself and other months I will curse myself for being an idiot. I would not change myself, though (at least not much).
Secondly: what do trans sexuals think of the gender transition surgery being done in public healthcare? Here in the UK we have the NHS (National Health Service). This means that most medical care is covered by your national insurance. Cosmetic surgery is sometimes covered. You could not get a boob job on the NHS just because you wanted double Ds. You would probably be able to get a boob job if you were a young women who lost a breast due to cancer. As a teenager I believe my sister had some cosmetic work done as she had an accident that severely damaged her face, and she was able to have it restored surgically so that she did not have to go through life being even uglier than she already is. Do you think that trans gender surgery should be covered by public healthcare? (I an also including all of the other care, such as phsyc and drugs which I assume is needed along with the surgery).
Lastly: What do you think about parents raising their children to be gender neutral? There have been a few trashy news stories recently about parents giving their male children neutral names and, for example, having them wear boys clothes on day and girls the next. There are even cases where parents sometimes send their <10 year old boys to school in dresses because they want their child to be able to choose for them self which sex they identify with. Could such a gender neutral upbringing make a child more likely to develop gender dysphoria?
On December 06 2012 01:26 hzflank wrote: I would like to play devil's advocate a bit. before I do I want to state that other people going through gender transitions does not affect me in the slightest, so as far as I am concerned trans sexuals can do whatever they want.
My first point: I have to wonder if trans sexuality is a body image problem? Being unhappy with yourself is a part of life. Obviously there are degrees of unhappiness, but most people just get on with life. There will be good times and bad times, some months I will think highly of myself and other months I will curse myself for being an idiot. I would not change myself, though (at least not much).
It's not about the quality of looks, but about secondary sexual characteristics (that you look at to determine a stranger's gender).
To quote from my own post from the previous page:
It's not comparable to body dismorphic disorder; without a hyperbole, I'd rather be the ugliest woman than the most handsome man. Of course I care about looks, but my gender is the most important thing to me. I cannot live as a man for the rest of my life without being suicidally miserable about it. I tried until now, it never worked and I crashed. Gender dysphoria never goes away, it actually just even exponentially worsens with all the regrets about all the more years lost from some of the most beautiful youthful years had one been living them as their identified sex.
On December 06 2012 01:26 hzflank wrote: I would like to play devil's advocate a bit. before I do I want to state that other people going through gender transitions does not affect me in the slightest, so as far as I am concerned trans sexuals can do whatever they want.
My first point: I have to wonder if trans sexuality is a body image problem? Being unhappy with yourself is a part of life. Obviously there are degrees of unhappiness, but most people just get on with life. There will be good times and bad times, some months I will think highly of myself and other months I will curse myself for being an idiot. I would not change myself, though (at least not much).
Secondly: what do trans sexuals think of the gender transition surgery being done in public healthcare? Here in the UK we have the NHS (National Health Service). This means that most medical care is covered by your national insurance. Cosmetic surgery is sometimes covered. You could not get a boob job on the NHS just because you wanted double Ds. You would probably be able to get a boob job if you were a young women who lost a breast due to cancer. As a teenager I believe my sister had some cosmetic work done as she had an accident that severely damaged her face, and she was able to have it restored surgically so that she did not have to go through life being even uglier than she already is. Do you think that trans gender surgery should be covered by public healthcare? (I an also including all of the other care, such as phsyc and drugs which I assume is needed along with the surgery).
Lastly: What do you think about parents raising their children to be gender neutral? There have been a few trashy news stories recently about parents giving their male children neutral names and, for example, having them wear boys clothes on day and girls the next. There are even cases where parents sometimes send their <10 year old boys to school in dresses because they want their child to be able to choose for them self which sex they identify with. Could such a gender neutral upbringing make a child more likely to develop gender dysphoria?
second: well, I live in Germany, I will not have to pay hormones/ operations due to public healthcare BUT in exchange I am subject to nearly all-mighty therapists, whose main hobby is to let people wait because everyone needs a therapist (it's free, right?) so you often wait like 6 months to get one, and if you have one... well its a process thats REALLY slow. I would very much like a free system, with better conditions. Money is easier to get than time (at least, for me thats true)
lastly: thats leftist nonsense. Most people identify as either m or f, and forcing children to do what they dont want without any apparent reason ist just cruel. (that is true for trans and for cis people)
On December 06 2012 01:26 hzflank wrote: I would like to play devil's advocate a bit. before I do I want to state that other people going through gender transitions does not affect me in the slightest, so as far as I am concerned trans sexuals can do whatever they want.
My first point: I have to wonder if trans sexuality is a body image problem? Being unhappy with yourself is a part of life. Obviously there are degrees of unhappiness, but most people just get on with life. There will be good times and bad times, some months I will think highly of myself and other months I will curse myself for being an idiot. I would not change myself, though (at least not much).
It's really not comparable to a body image problem. I mean, for example, for me, I don't really hate my male body. I just feel neutral towards it. Some trans people do hate their bodies. It's not a necessary prereq to hate your body (but I would argue that it is necessary to not have positive associations with it - this would be a red flag). What is necessary is there is a strong desire to be the opposite sex, and a feeling of knowing that to be "correct" (I can't really describe it to you. Sorry.)
Secondly: what do trans sexuals think of the gender transition surgery being done in public healthcare? Here in the UK we have the NHS (National Health Service). This means that most medical care is covered by your national insurance. Cosmetic surgery is sometimes covered. You could not get a boob job on the NHS just because you wanted double Ds. You would probably be able to get a boob job if you were a young women who lost a breast due to cancer. As a teenager I believe my sister had some cosmetic work done as she had an accident that severely damaged her face, and she was able to have it restored surgically so that she did not have to go through life being even uglier than she already is. Do you think that trans gender surgery should be covered by public healthcare? (I an also including all of the other care, such as phsyc and drugs which I assume is needed along with the surgery).
I think that the answer to this question is pretty obvious, but there are some nuances that need to be explained. First off, surgery is incredibly hard to get. You must be living full time as a female for at least 1 year before any psychiatrist will even think of writing you a letter of recommendation, and they must be absolutely convinced that you are not just a transsexual, but also that your genitals are causing extreme amounts of stress that cannot be resolved with psychotherapy. But if you somehow have a medical professional saying that this surgery is medically necessary, I do not see how you can justify that it not be included in public health insurance, other than some sort of prejudice or belief that the condition is not real.
As for the NHS, there are a lot of problems that means that I would not get surgery which is currently covered by the NHS. Number one: You do not get to pick your surgeon. 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. In nearly all cases they would be better off paying for it themselves. It's absolutely absurd that you cannot pick your own surgeon, given that different surgeons have completely different results.
Lastly: What do you think about parents raising their children to be gender neutral? There have been a few trashy news stories recently about parents giving their male children neutral names and, for example, having them wear boys clothes on day and girls the next. There are even cases where parents sometimes send their <10 year old boys to school in dresses because they want their child to be able to choose for them self which sex they identify with. Could such a gender neutral upbringing make a child more likely to develop gender dysphoria?
I think that gender neutral is not a good idea. There really are genders in the world, and people do tend to conform to one or the other. But what we should do is be more open to people who defy these norms. Gender is as much a biological construction as it is environmental (compare: intelligence - nature or nurture? how about both?)
Gender neutral upbringing would probably not make a child more likely to develop gender dysphoria. Less likely, since if they chose their own gender, it's pretty unlikely that they'd be mistaken about it. This tends to be the case with intersex patients. However, gender neutral upbringing has other psychological consequences that I think make it rather unwise. Most kids identify as M or F, and forcing them to live as both in order to make a decision is cruel. So, again, what people ought to do is just listen to their kids (what a notion!)
My first point: I have to wonder if trans sexuality is a body image problem? Being unhappy with yourself is a part of life. Obviously there are degrees of unhappiness, but most people just get on with life. There will be good times and bad times, some months I will think highly of myself and other months I will curse myself for being an idiot. I would not change myself, though (at least not much).
To quickly recap what has been stated many times in this thread, the view that is becoming increasingly accepted in the scientific community is that gender =/= sex. Gender is an internal mental construction, and it has to do with whether a person "feels" male or female. Sex is how your body expresses male or female characteristics, and it is not necessarily related to gender.
People in this thread have related that when your sex doesn't match up with your gender, it is extremely traumatic for some (but not all) trans people. A lot of effort has been put into explaining why this is, but it is difficult because those of us lucky enough to be born with the same sex and gender take it for granted. We can't understand what that feels like because we have no way to relate to it.
However, due to the facts that (1) many studies have demonstrated that there are measurable differences between male and female genders independent from sex, (2) the suicide rate among trans people is ~50%, and (3) many trans people are willing to assume the high cost and risks involved with aligning their sex with their gender, I think that the increasingly accepted view in the scientific community referred to above (Sex is not necessarily related to gender, and it can be very traumatic for people whose sex is different from their gender) is the correct one.
Therefore, I believe strongly that trans people suffer from much more than "body image problem."
Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The english language doesn't have a good word for a person's internal sex determination. ITT people use the word "gender" to express this concept. What has a logical basis is that a person's internal sex determination (whatever we choose to call it) is not necessarily related to their external sexual appearance.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
Except that much of the evidence presented in this thread is scientific. The inability for scientists to predict the gender of intersex patients, the differing brain structures between trans female and males, and also quality of life improvements from gender realignment all suggest that the previous scientific literature was incorrect. This is not motivated by feminist ideology - second wave feminism actually rejected transgenderism because it was "offensive" to what it meant to be a woman. Feminist ideology has been molded by transsexuals and intersex, not the other way around.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
There is really no scientific evidence for redefining gender as something different from sex. Separating the two is not a scientific concept at all, it is a political one.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: The inability for scientists to predict the gender of intersex patients
Gender and sex are the same thing. Intersex people are intergender.
This is called the "begging the question" fallacy. You assume gender is something different as part of your proof that gender is something different.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: the differing brain structures between trans female and males
In what way do you think this separates sex and gender? If anything it demonstrates the exact opposite. If someone has to have a physically different brain makeup from males to be a transsexual they do not fall into the male sex/gender category.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: quality of life improvements from gender realignment
This in no way provides evidence that sex and gender are different things. It just shows that by indulging their desire to be a different sex/gender you improve their happiness. Likewise, going to furry events and wearing a fursuit may make furries feel happy, but no valid conclusions about the differences between species could be drawn from such information.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: This is not motivated by feminist ideology
The claim that sex and gender are different comes directly from feminist ideology. Feminists needed to explain why, although they claim women and men are equivalent, women prefer social fields of study over mechanical ones, as well as different toys, etc. They invented the idea that "gender" is different, so they could claim that women are just adopting the "gender" they have been forced into rather than exhibiting natural characteristics of their biology.
Ideological disputes between feminists and transgenders are really irrelevant. This is where the attempt to redefine gender comes from, and it is frankly quite silly.
[QUOTE]On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: [QUOTE]On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
-wrong post quoted
not trying to start a fire here, but you are completely wrong by saying that they are used interchangeably in all scientific literature. if you give two shits i'm a psychology major
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
Gender and sex are the same thing. Intersex people are intergender.
This is called the "begging the question" fallacy. You assume gender is something different as part of your proof that gender is something different.
Actually, they're not intergender. Sometimes, they are. More often, they choose male or female.
In what way do you think this separates sex and gender? If anything it demonstrates the exact opposite. If someone has to have a physically different brain makeup from males to be a transsexual they do not fall into the male sex/gender category.
Except that if you define sex and gender as the same thing, and sex is defined as having a penis or vagina, then necessarily those who have a physically different brain makeup from males are still male if they have a penis.
The claim that sex and gender are different comes directly from feminist ideology. Feminists needed to explain why, although they claim women and men are equivalent, women prefer social fields of study over mechanical ones, as well as different toys, etc. They invented the idea that "gender" is different, so they could claim that women are just adopting the "gender" they have been forced into rather than exhibiting natural characteristics of their biology.
You mistakenly put all of feminism under one umbrella. Not all feminists buy into the idea of gender. Some feminists are gender essentialists, some of them constructionists, some of them neither. Feminism is an umbrella term for a whole bunch of different thought processes on how best to combat sexism and misogyny. Some people think that men and women are essentially the same, but culture has "shaped" us, and we should work to eliminate the differences, but others think that men and women are really different, and we should celebrate these differences.
As far as the "natural characteristics of their biology," well, since we have people that are physically male as far as their bodies are concerned, and transition into female bodies, we have a lot of information on the differences between male and female biology. These differences have been empirically studied. They include, psychologically: Intenser experiences of emotions, increased sense of smell, easier to cry, etc. Unfortunately for you, they did not include the sudden elimination of the ability to do mathematics or someone's personal preferences in gender specific activities.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague.
On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote: Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague.
To put it simply, sex refers to one's physical sex, while gender refers to how one's brain expects the physical sex of the body to be. The problem is when the two don't match as one's subconscious isn't capable of abandoning that expectation.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
First you say years, now you say decades. Which is it?
The reason they have to stipulate such a thing is because it is recently fabricated nonsense. If the words meant different things people would have been using them differently without the need of "style guidelines" telling them to.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
First you say years, now you say decades. Which is it?
The reason they have to stipulate such a thing is because it is recently fabricated nonsense. If the words meant different things people would have been using them differently without the need of "style guidelines" telling them to.
This is an actual example of begging the question. Look, people don't use them differently because most people never experience the separation. This is your cissexual privilege.
On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote: Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague.
Gender and sex are synonyms. They mean exactly the same thing.
In very recent modern history there has been a tendency to try and diminish genetic factors and pretend everything is nurture rather than nature. For this reason feminists began claiming that "gender" is somehow different from sex, to try and divorce female behaviours from outward female appearance. They then claim the reason women tend to behave a certain way is not due to inherent differences, but because they have been forced into a "gender" role.
On December 06 2012 02:27 mortonm wrote: There is really no scientific evidence for redefining gender as something different from sex. Separating the two is not a scientific concept at all, it is a political one.
Yes, and I'm sure your personal belief that the "feminist agenda" has created this distinction ex-nihilo has no effect on your objective assessment of the scientific literature on the subject.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: The inability for scientists to predict the gender of intersex patients
Gender and sex are the same thing. Intersex people are intergender.
They don't seem to think so. They seem to feel like they want to be on one side or the other. And it's unpredictable which side they want to choose.
On December 06 2012 02:27 mortonm wrote: This is called the "begging the question" fallacy. You assume gender is something different as part of your proof that gender is something different.
You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: the differing brain structures between trans female and males
In what way do you think this separates sex and gender? If anything it demonstrates the exact opposite. If someone has to have a physically different brain makeup from males to be a transsexual they do not fall into the male sex/gender category.
Now you're redefining sex as the way gender is defined: a mental state rather than a physical one.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: This is not motivated by feminist ideology
The claim that sex and gender are different comes directly from feminist ideology. Feminists needed to explain why, although they claim women and men are equivalent, women prefer social fields of study over mechanical ones, as well as different toys, etc. They invented the idea that "gender" is different, so they could claim that women are just adopting the "gender" they have been forced into rather than exhibiting natural characteristics of their biology.
Ideological disputes between feminists and transgenders are really irrelevant. This is where the attempt to redefine gender comes from, and it is frankly quite silly.
It doesn't matter where an idea "comes from"; what matters is whether it is right. Whether there is evidence for it. The people who actually study this stuff (ie: not some guy on a forum) have determined that gender (mental state) and sex (physical state) are separate concepts and can be dysphoric (ie: not in agreement).
Do you have actual research backing up your claim? And no, I don't mean making a few statements on a forum. I mean actual scientific research to show that physical state and mental state are always in alignment, then your position has no foundation other than your personal distaste for your conception of feminism and the fact that you find it "quite silly".
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
First you say years, now you say decades. Which is it?
Decades are made of years.
On December 06 2012 02:42 mortonm wrote: The reason they have to stipulate such a thing is because it is recently fabricated nonsense. If the words meant different things people would have been using them differently without the need of "style guidelines" telling them to.
We choose what words mean based on the need for language. For a long time, we didn't need a word for "mental sexual state" as opposed to "physical sexual state", because for a long time we didn't know that these were two different things. Now we do. Just as once upon a time, we didn't need a word for "firearm"; once guns came into being, we needed a word to describe them.
We simply took an existing word and gave it a distinct meaning once we realized that a distinction needed to be made. If you have a problem with this happening, if you think a new word should have been invented rather than re-purposing an old one... I don't care. That's how the scientific literature defines them now, and that is how they are.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Can you please tell me what "explicit differentiation" means? Because you've just indicated that you don't know. The AMA has maintained a clear difference between sex and gender for decades, and they actually stipulate that sex and gender are not synonyms.
First you say years, now you say decades. Which is it?
The reason they have to stipulate such a thing is because it is recently fabricated nonsense. If the words meant different things people would have been using them differently without the need of "style guidelines" telling them to.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
On December 06 2012 02:48 NicolBolas wrote: Decades are made of years.
Decades are also made of seconds, but saying something has been a certain way for seconds implies a briefer period of time than saying decades.
On December 06 2012 02:48 NicolBolas wrote: We choose what words mean based on the need for language. For a long time, we didn't need a word for "mental sexual state" as opposed to "physical sexual state", because for a long time we didn't know that these were two different things. Now we do. Just as once upon a time, we didn't need a word for "firearm"; once guns came into being, we needed a word to describe them.
We simply took an existing word and gave it a distinct meaning once we realized that a distinction needed to be made. If you have a problem with this happening, if you think a new word should have been invented rather than re-purposing an old one... I don't care. That's how the scientific literature defines them now, and that is how they are.
So do we need a new word for "mental species state" as opposed to "physical species state"? Why or why not?
We seem to be arguing past each other here. Now you concede that people are attempting to redefine gender, but you aren't providing any scientific basis for such a definition. As I have said this redefinition is purely political.
On December 06 2012 02:48 farvacola wrote: See, I knew you knew what a synonym really was!
Are you claiming years and decades are synonyms? They aren't.
On December 06 2012 00:49 FrankWalls wrote: what are the definitions of a disorder? that's something that i think is of utmost importance to the topic honestly. i mean i dont have much problem with transsexuals, but it seems to me that having something where you need to take hormones, often surgery, and other such provisions to be happy seems pretty.. disorderly.
But is it a disorder of the mind, or of the body? Just as one could argue that the body is the basis, one could just as easily argue that the mind is the basis, and in that case it becomes a physical handicap instead of a mental disorder.
i dont know which it is because im no expert, but to me a disorder would be a disorder
and to throw in my lack of expertise 2 cents, i'd say it's probably a disorder of the mind, in cases like this the body usually is functioning pretty standardly, but it's the mind that is having trouble with the whole gender thing. i hate to equate the two but to me it'd be like saying someone with body dimorphic disorder actually had a physical handicap because he didnt happen to have the ideal body that he had.
On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote: Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague.
To put it simply, sex refers to one's physical sex, while gender refers to how one's brain expects the physical sex of the body to be. The problem is when the two don't match as one's subconscious isn't capable of abandoning that expectation.
On December 06 2012 02:38 ScandiNAVIan wrote: Could someone please explain what gender is, my mother tongue has one word for sex and gender. I tried looking it up at Wikipedia, but their definition was vague.
To put it simply, sex refers to one's physical sex, while gender refers to how one's brain expects the physical sex of the body to be. The problem is when the two don't match as one's subconscious isn't capable of abandoning that expectation.
"expects" in what sense of the word?
In this sense:
excerpt from Julia Serano - Whipping Girl
It became obvious to me that I actually wanted to be a girl, and that, on some level, it felt right.
Trying to translate these subconscious experiences into conscious thought is a messy business. All of the words available in the English language completely fail to accurately capture or convey my personal understanding of these events. For example, if I were to say that I "saw" myself as female, or "knew" myself to be a girl, I would be denying the fact that I was consciously aware of my physical maleness at all times. And saying that I "wished" or "wanted" to be a girl erases how much being female made sense to me, how it felt right on the deepest, most profound level of my being. I could say that I "felt" like a girl, but that would give the false impression that I knew how other girls (and other boys) felt. And if I were to say I was "supposed to be" a girl, or that I "should have been born" female, it would imply that I had some sort of cosmic insight into the grand scheme of the universe, which I most certainly did not.
Perhaps the best way to describe how my subconscious sex feels to me is to say that it seems as if, on some level, my brain expects my body to be female. Indeed there is some evidence to suggest that our brains have an intrinsic understanding of what sex our bodies should be.
(subconscious sex referring to gender in that paragraph)
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Medicine is very much a science. It is subject to the scientific method just as physics is.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Why, biology, more specifically physiology, genetics and neuroanatomy aren't on the same level?
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
Indeed, presumably the only reason Shinosai is asking this dude to provide examples of scientific evidence he'd believe is due to mortonm's refusal to understand the inherent differences between medicine, especially in regards to psychology, and the hard maths and sciences. Medicine is certainly enmeshed with the standards of scientific inquiry, but when it comes to the study of the human mind, this relationship manifests itself rather differently.
For those that are having trouble understanding, I think it's because there is a lot of ambiguity in the language. But hopefully the genderbread cookie can help you out.
Gender identity: Whether you identify as a woman, man, or something in between.
Gender expression: Masculine, feminine, or something in between.
Sex: Female, male, intersex. Refers to your chromosomes, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, etc. Usually determined by whether or not someone has a "penis or vagina"
I think one problem in this thread is that gender expression has been conflated with gender identity. Not the same thing. Hence why, yes, you can be a trans female and still identify as a tomboy. Gender expression has very little to do with gender identity. You can be an effeminate man, and this does not make you transgender.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
Your problem is that your anti-feminist nonsense is drowning out your reasoning. You're so focused on the language used that you don't care about the meaning behind that language. Words are words; arbitrary labels we put onto concepts that allow is to communicate more effectively. What matters is the concepts themselves. And the concept of a mental sexual state exists which is separate from the concept of a physical sexual state.
We have decided to call this concept "gender". If you have a problem with that... tough. That's what it's called now. If you think that the reasons we call it "gender" are dubious or informed by politics... tough. It needs a word, and that's the word we picked.
Arguing about what word to use for the concept is purely semantic and unproductive.
On December 06 2012 02:48 NicolBolas wrote: Decades are made of years.
Decades are also made of seconds, but saying something has been a certain way for seconds implies a briefer period of time than saying decades.
But they're both still technically true. So your questions should not have been the argumentative and dismissive "which is it" but the more useful "how long ago was it."
On December 06 2012 02:48 NicolBolas wrote: We choose what words mean based on the need for language. For a long time, we didn't need a word for "mental sexual state" as opposed to "physical sexual state", because for a long time we didn't know that these were two different things. Now we do. Just as once upon a time, we didn't need a word for "firearm"; once guns came into being, we needed a word to describe them.
We simply took an existing word and gave it a distinct meaning once we realized that a distinction needed to be made. If you have a problem with this happening, if you think a new word should have been invented rather than re-purposing an old one... I don't care. That's how the scientific literature defines them now, and that is how they are.
So do we need a new word for "mental species state" as opposed to "physical species state"? Why or why not?
You would have to ask the experts. The experts say that "mental sexual state" is different from "physical sexual state". They have evidence for this, some of which has been presented to you (and offhandedly dismissed by you).
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote: We seem to be arguing past each other here. Now you concede that people are attempting to redefine gender, but you aren't providing any scientific basis for such a definition.
I don't need to. The actual scientists who know this stuff have already made the determination, as evidenced by the fact that they defined it as such.
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote: As I have said this redefinition is purely political.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Nor does offhandedly dismissing valid scientific determinations.
If you believe that all of the science on gender dysphoria is politically motivated, then there is no way that anyone can prove otherwise. You will dismiss any objective evidence of a distinction as simply feminist-inspired nonsense.
In short, you have assumed your own conclusion, creating circular reasoning which cannot be broken by any evidence.
On December 06 2012 02:46 NicolBolas wrote: You can rephrase the use of "gender" as "which sex the person mentally feels comfortable with" if you like; the statement is no less true. Whether you want to call it "gender" or some other word, there is a mental state of being male/female.
Perhaps we should invent a new word then, for what species someone "feels comfortable with"? Then furries could claim to be the species they identify with.
Just because some men want to be women and vice versa doesn't require redefinition of gender.
Science moved on from such a thing due to evidence, not political wrangling.
On the contrary there is no valid scientific evidence for separating gender from sex. It's purely political.
I know it's probably a waste of time, but I'm going to give it one last try. Question: What sort of scientific evidence would convince you that they were separate? You see, I have a gut feeling here that there is no possible scientific evidence that could ever convince you of this fact, for you would rationalize it all away like you have done for the evidence already presented. And if that's the case, then there's no real point in discussing this any further with you. But maybe there is something that can convince you. So, if there is, what is it?
"scientific" doesnt say much in these matters. We're not talking physics or mathematics.
If you're going to discount an entire field of scientific study as not being "real science" by some arbitrary metric... then what do you care what they have determined and put into a book?
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.
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.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
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.
Oh thank god you came in here to tell transgender people what's REALLY bothering them. If you had bothered to read ANY post in this thread...seriously you could have picked literally any post, you would have read that the relationship between gender and sex is more than just social construction or illusion.
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.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
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.
sometimes i feel like the transgender thing is partially a social reaction rather than a natural reaction that would happen normally in someone's head, but i dont know.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
I had my people do a cost-benefit analysis, and it was a close thing, but in the end I decided it wasn't right for me
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
No one in their right mind would "choose" to be transsexual. Do you honestly think so many people would voluntarily risk losing everything if it was a choice?
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.
sometimes i feel like the transgender thing is partially a social reaction rather than a natural reaction that would happen normally in someone's head, but i dont know.
When you are talking about consciousness, identity formation, psychosexual stuff, etc. there is NO valid distinction between "social" and "natural" so the point is moot
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
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.
sometimes i feel like the transgender thing is partially a social reaction rather than a natural reaction that would happen normally in someone's head, but i dont know.
When you are talking about consciousness, identity formation, psychosexual stuff, etc. there is NO valid distinction between "social" and "natural" so the point is moot
i understand what youre saying, i worded it poorly. i just mean that i think societal influences are a big part of this sort of thing
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
There have also been cases where trans parents' children looked up to their trans parent(s) and said that they are proud of their parent(s) for having the courage to become themselves, it inspires them to be brave and it also made them more open-minded.
Bullying and prejudice happen in the case of having homosexual parents too.
And just who is to judge that a trans person cannot be a good parent, or by them merely existing, their kid would not develop well. You could say the same then about homosexual parents regarding identity problems, or about single parents, and regarding getting fucked up, I think most would take having a loving and caring MtF mother/second mother over an alcoholic, abusive father. But then, they wouldn't have the perspective of the latter case to compare it to, but as they'd grow older they'd understand.
But not everyone is as liberal as you are, some people see gender as sacrosanct.
Being trans was a mental disorder up until a while ago, how would you feel about a bi polar adult adopting a kid?
Straight up: people see fucking with your gender as unnatural and creepy, it's not a view that can be objectively justified (to the same degree that racism can, for example) but the prejudice exists and exists for these reasons.
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.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
The attention you get for being transgender is 99% negative. Anyone that suggests that there are "advantages" to being transgender simply must be speaking from a position of privilege, because being transgender is one of the worst possible minorities you could ever choose to be. The quality of your life is so much worse and chances of suicide are literally higher than any other minority.
The feeling of uniqueness? I think there's easier ways to do that than than spending up to $50,000 (many times way more) to alter your body and risking serious health consequences.
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.
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.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Your problem is that your anti-feminist nonsense is drowning out your reasoning. You're so focused on the language used that you don't care about the meaning behind that language. Words are words; arbitrary labels we put onto concepts that allow is to communicate more effectively. What matters is the concepts themselves. And the concept of a mental sexual state exists which is separate from the concept of a physical sexual state.
We have decided to call this concept "gender". If you have a problem with that... tough. That's what it's called now. If you think that the reasons we call it "gender" are dubious or informed by politics... tough. It needs a word, and that's the word we picked.
Arguing about what word to use for the concept is purely semantic and unproductive.
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?
The problem with redefining an existing word is that now people act smug and superior when they "correct" someone who uses the word properly, the same way it has been used for generations.
It feeds into many people's desire to feel superior to others, so they go around "correcting" people who haven't adopted this utterly nonsense modern redefinition.
I would be very interested to see some poll results for these questions:
Does transgenderism make you feel uncomfortable? Yes? A little? No? Do you think transgendered people deserve the right to adopt? Yes? No? Does anybody have the right to identify with any gender at any time? Yes? Only once? No?
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.
So you don't think your quality of life would be worse if you lost sensation in your penis? Just keeping things in perspective here.
keep in mind that we're at a weird moment right now where transgenderism is becoming a social issue (because now surgically possible) but medical science is still primitive enough that it's expensive. Sure, there's some questions about cost now, but it's only going to get cheaper and more effective to do, so why not?
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.
On December 06 2012 02:03 shinosai wrote: This is not motivated by feminist ideology
The claim that sex and gender are different comes directly from feminist ideology. Feminists needed to explain why, although they claim women and men are equivalent, women prefer social fields of study over mechanical ones, as well as different toys, etc. They invented the idea that "gender" is different, so they could claim that women are just adopting the "gender" they have been forced into rather than exhibiting natural characteristics of their biology.
Ideological disputes between feminists and transgenders are really irrelevant. This is where the attempt to redefine gender comes from, and it is frankly quite silly.
Just because feminists have embraced the distinction between sex and gender, does not imply that there is any relation to the transgender issues at hand. Feminist ideology generally follows gender constructionist views that gender is purely socially constructed; however, this is incompatible with the existence of transgender individuals who desire hormone therapy and SRS since these imply a physical basis for gender. On top of this, many feminists (particularly second wave feminists and radfems) are blatantly transphobic, so the notion that transsexuals have anything to do with the feminist redefinition of gender is pretty laughable.
On December 06 2012 01:59 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing. They are used interchangeably in scientific literature.
The attempt to redefine gender as something separate from sex is very recent, and motivated by feminist ideology rather than any scientific or logical basis.
The AMA style guide has contained an explicit differentiation between sex and gender for many years now, try again.
Yes, exactly my point. Sex and gender always have been synonyms. The attempt to redefine gender as something different is very recent and motivated by political rather than scientific reasons.
Or perhaps it's motivated by a better understanding of sex and gender.
On December 06 2012 02:59 mortonm wrote: So do we need a new word for "mental species state" as opposed to "physical species state"? Why or why not?
We seem to be arguing past each other here. Now you concede that people are attempting to redefine gender, but you aren't providing any scientific basis for such a definition. As I have said this redefinition is purely political.
What exactly is your point here? Whether a given instance of aneurotypicality is a "disorder" or not is always going to be purely subjective. For example, Asperger's represents an atypical mental condition, but on what grounds could you clearly delineate whether it's a disorder or not?
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.
Yeah but I mean, you don't want your penis anymore and you expect to just "purchase" a fully functional organ? I think it's a bit of a ridiculous expectation.
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.
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?
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
The attention you get for being transgender is 99% negative. Anyone that suggests that there are "advantages" to being transgender simply must be speaking from a position of privilege, because being transgender is one of the worst possible minorities you could ever choose to be. The quality of your life is so much worse and chances of suicide are literally higher than any other minority.
The feeling of uniqueness? I think there's easier ways to do that than than spending up to $50,000 (many times way more) to alter your body and risking serious health consequences.
there is plenty of support for transgenders online and in their communities, and for a lot of people, negative attention is just fine for them. just look at plenty of celebrities that do stupid shit to try to stay relevant. like i said, this is probably a tiny minority of transgenders, but people are out there that would choose to do this stuff. i would be a lot of money on it
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.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
transgender =/= transsexual. transgender is an umbrella term for transsexual, genderqueer, bigender, agender, genderfluid, etc. people as well as usually crossdressers and drag queens get lumped in
out of these, only transsexual people would transition to the opposite sex
crossdressers identifying as transgender doesn't mean they identify as transsexual unless they specifically state that they identify as transsexual or are willing to / have already begun/finished transition
non-transsexual transgender people have it arguably insanely better than transsexual people
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
The attention you get for being transgender is 99% negative. Anyone that suggests that there are "advantages" to being transgender simply must be speaking from a position of privilege, because being transgender is one of the worst possible minorities you could ever choose to be. The quality of your life is so much worse and chances of suicide are literally higher than any other minority.
The feeling of uniqueness? I think there's easier ways to do that than than spending up to $50,000 (many times way more) to alter your body and risking serious health consequences.
there is plenty of support for transgenders online and in their communities, and for a lot of people, negative attention is just fine for them. just look at plenty of celebrities that do stupid shit to try to stay relevant. like i said, this is probably a tiny minority of transgenders, but people are out there that would choose to do this stuff. i would be a lot of money on it
I have watched all four seasons of Rupaul's Drag Race and only one of those drag queens was transgender (was Willum transgender? that would make 2). Unless you can come up with a larger sample to back up your claim, I'm going to say most drag queens identify as male and there is a distinct difference between a performer and a transgender person.
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.
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.
On December 05 2012 21:33 Fulla wrote: I only have one question. Will this mean transgender people can start adopting children?
If so what are peoples thoughts on this?
Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
transgender =/= transsexual. transgender is an umbrella term for transsexual, genderqueer, bigender, agender, genderfluid, etc. people as well as usually crossdressers and drag queens get lumped in
out of these, only transsexual people would transition to the opposite sex
crossdressers identifying as transgender doesn't mean they identify as transsexual unless they specifically state that they identify as transsexual or are willing to / have already begun/finished transition
non-transsexual transgender people have it arguably insanely better than transsexual people
well thats what i mean. i mean that's what the topic of the thread is about right?
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:
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).
On December 05 2012 22:41 Zealos wrote: [quote] Hopefully, and I would have no problem whatsoever.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
transgender =/= transsexual. transgender is an umbrella term for transsexual, genderqueer, bigender, agender, genderfluid, etc. people as well as usually crossdressers and drag queens get lumped in
out of these, only transsexual people would transition to the opposite sex
crossdressers identifying as transgender doesn't mean they identify as transsexual unless they specifically state that they identify as transsexual or are willing to / have already begun/finished transition
non-transsexual transgender people have it arguably insanely better than transsexual people
well thats what i mean. i mean that's what the topic of the thread is about right?
this thread is more about specifically transsexual people, because gender identity disorder's definition included identifying as the opposite sex, which doesn't fit non-transsexual transgender people
it's just that the thread's title has transgender and not transsexual in it
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.
oh?
So when I say:
"le mot << la table >> est feminin"
I am saying that the word is of the female sex?
edit: for bonus points, can you give me the etymology of english word "gender"?
On December 06 2012 03:28 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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.
"Many"?
First of all, transitioning involves MUCH more than sex reassignment surgery. Most trans people need to undergo years of hormone replacement therapy before undergoing surgery, and that will have a profound and virtually irreversible effect on your body.
Second of all, the dissatisfaction rate for transition is ridiculously low.
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.
Really, you don't think kids would end up kinda fucked? Identity problems? Problems that are exclusive to the fact that they have a transgendered parent? Bullying? Prejudice?
I think it's on a different magnitude than homosexual parenthood. It sounds selfish in some way - I guess you could interpret wanting to have a baby at all (as anyone) as selfish, but something seems a little weird here. Sounds like a blatant disregard for the future well-being and of a child given all the stigma and all the completely reasonable groundwork for it.
Call me old fashioned.
Something I ask people to do when they make the "bullying" argument about adoptions is to replace "gay" or "trans" with "black". If you think about it your arguments do not stand up because they i fringe on people's rights.
Yeah but being black isn't voluntary
So, tell me, would YOU ever volunteer to be a transgender person? If not, what makes you think any person on this earth would be so delusional as to actually want to be transgender?
i hate to be 'that guy', but there are plenty of reasons why someone would choose to do this. for attention, a feeling of uniqueness, maybe someone just really really would prefer the lifestyle that another gender has. are all transgender people like this? i really doubt it, but to say there's no reason to voluntarily do this is very naive
No one would "choose" to live as a transsexual person for the rest of their life for attention (otherwise, ironically, they'd feel gender dysphoria by transitioning). If they only preferred the lifestyle of another gender, they could crossdress in private / in public in safety within the company of accepting friends, and do activities more generally considered to be for the other gender. They wouldn't risk their health with hormones and surgeries, they wouldn't want to get rid of body parts that they don't hate, they wouldn't risk losing all their family, friends, job and receive so much discrimination everywhere.
it's not like they always think rationally about it. maybe they had a tough life, maybe they feel excluded, maybe they want to be looked at, and as far as i know, plenty of crossdressers identify as transgender. i think theres gray area on that. not all transgenders have to get the surgery. i think you vastly underestimate the lengths that someone would go just for seemingly silly reasons
transgender =/= transsexual. transgender is an umbrella term for transsexual, genderqueer, bigender, agender, genderfluid, etc. people as well as usually crossdressers and drag queens get lumped in
out of these, only transsexual people would transition to the opposite sex
crossdressers identifying as transgender doesn't mean they identify as transsexual unless they specifically state that they identify as transsexual or are willing to / have already begun/finished transition
non-transsexual transgender people have it arguably insanely better than transsexual people
well thats what i mean. i mean that's what the topic of the thread is about right?
this thread is more about specifically transsexual people, because gender identity disorder's definition included identifying as the opposite sex, which doesn't fit non-transsexual transgender people
it's just that the thread's title has transgender and not transsexual in it
Just because feminists have embraced the distinction between sex and gender, does not imply that there is any relation to the transgender issues at hand. Feminist ideology generally follows gender constructionist views that gender is purely socially constructed; however, this is incompatible with the existence of transgender individuals who desire hormone therapy and SRS since these imply a physical basis for gender. On top of this, many feminists (particularly second wave feminists and radfems) are blatantly transphobic, so the notion that transsexuals have anything to do with the feminist redefinition of gender is pretty laughable.
This needs repeating. Excellent post, Sunprince. Anyone that takes the time to read "Whipping Girl" would know that the feminist agenda has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. Feminists are just being lumped together into this one giant group, when there is as much diversity in feminism as there is with gender expression. Second wave feminists and rad fems are highly gender constructionist, but much of contemporary feminism rejects gender constructionism.
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.
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.
That first link is bunk. You can't blame me for not taking that seriously.
The second one is better but there's just as much speculation from critics as the article claims of proponents. Essentially both sides have thrown up their hands and said "we don't know!" ...which I would expect from an article in 2004.
Many transgender people have been thoroughly abused throughout their lives. They suffer from deep depression and anxiety. If they simply transition genders without any sort of therapy, I can imagine their mental health wouldn't improve the way it should.
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).
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.
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.
On December 06 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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.
As a trans girl, I would actually agree with you. I am no MORE of a woman after I receive SRS, because gender is decided by the brain, not by your primary sex characteristics.
On December 06 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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).
There is no concrete answer as of yet. Most people believe that one's self is a part of the mind, not the body, so it would only follow that the body should be changed, while the mind is preserved. However, the "problem" with trans people is that there is an incongruency between the body and the mind in the first place, so it's difficult to point a finger at which one is causing the problem.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
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 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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
If you are trying to make a point, it is a very flawed one.
There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction. Indeed, there are many cisgender women who can't have babies, and nobody directly challenges their gender. Moreover, there are many trans men who CAN have babies, but they are still men. And finally, this will be entirely bunk once medical science allows trans women to have babies.
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 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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
Random thought experiment. Amusing in itself but, if you want to actually test its logic you must consider whether the quality (of being) "gay" somehow transcends who you are attracted to, and is a inward quality that always makes you attracted to whomever you consider to be of your same gender; or if being gay is simply an "outward" attraction, and not a "inward" metaphysical attribute that stays with you every time you were to hypothetically change genders.
Say you were married to a woman. While you were asleep some (bastard) played a prank on you and changed your sex. Now, since you are heterosexual by "nature", would you instantly wake up no longer being attracted to your wife, even before you yourself knew you were now a woman? I would think not . I would expect you to still be attracted to your wife.
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
you misunderstood; the person becomes a women and then slept with women... after first being a man.
Why would a gay man want to become a woman. If he identifies as a gay man then he likes being a male who has sex with other males whereas if he identifies as a transgender woman then he was never gay, he was always into hetero relationships with men. The entire example is a nonsense, it reads "what if someone is really inconsistent and then acts in an inconsistent way, what are they?", the answer is, of course, that they are inconsistent.
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of being a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Again the genderbread person explains this distinction. But, anyways, look, you can't understand the "sense" of being a man or a woman because of your cissexual privilege. You have never had anyone question the fact that you are a guy, because your sex and your gender are in alignment. Because you've never experienced this, you can't understand the "sense". I can't explain to you what it means to be trans - all I can do is get you to understand that you have a sense of what it's like to be male - you just can't feel it because it is in alignment. But you might become very aware of it if people started treating you like a woman.
On December 06 2012 04:52 Olinim wrote: Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Well, what do you mean by "the characteristics typically attributed to it"? Do you mean stereotypical gender roles (women are feminine, men are masculine), or do you mean truly inherent traits?
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of being a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Exactly. People go through years of hormone therapy and then have the genitalia removed just so they have an excuse for not being able to reverse park.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
you're not going to last long here. what you're doing right now is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "NANANANANNAA IM RIGHT IM RIGHT IM RIGHT" even though virtually every other person in this topic disagrees with you and many have provided reliable factual (read: scientific) evidence that you're wrong. good luck on your future tl endeavours.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked.
On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
We have provided scientific evidence on numerous occasions in this thread.
On December 06 2012 04:52 Olinim wrote: Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Well, what do you mean by "the characteristics typically attributed to it"? Do you mean stereotypical gender roles (women are feminine, men are masculine), or do you mean truly inherent traits?
Yes I meant gender roles.
Earlier you said "There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction". Well, what is there to being a woman according to you?
On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
There was actually a lot of research done regarding differences in neuroanatomy hinting at how one's gender identity is rooted in their neuroanatomy that does not match the rest of the body in the case of transsexual people, hence creating an incongruence between the sex of the brain (gender) and the sex of the body.
On December 06 2012 05:04 Olinim wrote: Yes I meant gender roles.
Earlier you said "There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction". Well, what is there to being a woman according to you?
Look at the post below yours. There's a lot of information on the neurological differences between men and women, and the neurological similarities between cis women and trans women.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked.
Arguing with a mod about gender issues certainly won't, provided you are civil. Arguing with a mod about moderation issues anywhere outside of the website feedback forum after an explicit warning not to will absolutely get you banned, he was warned for that exact offence. Arguing with a mod generally is fine though. I just wanted to address this before anyone got the wrong idea and the topic devolved further, if anyone has anything more to add then please PM me or take it to website feedback. Thank you.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked.
Arguing with a mod about gender issues certainly won't, provided you are civil. Arguing with a mod about moderation issues anywhere outside of the website feedback forum after an explicit warning not to will absolutely get you banned, he was warned for that exact offence. Arguing with a mod generally is fine though. I just wanted to address this before anyone got the wrong idea and the topic devolved further, if anyone has anything more to add then please PM me or take it to website feedback. Thank you.
On December 05 2012 21:22 Lynda wrote: In retrospect I vividly remember having female self-images as a kid (I didn't see them as "self-images" back then), and due to all the shame I tried to repress them. I didn't ever really feel like I was a male, rather I was feeling impersonal, genderless, dissociated from my body due to having to bury or externalize my self-image onto others (which always led to disappointment since I couldn't live through them). Female pronouns and terms always felt "right" to me (no other way to describe it) while male ones felt wrong, inaccurate. I didn't choose to feel that way about them. I had very long phases of denial and trying to work against it, but I couldn't change my intrinsic, subconscious feelings.
I always secretly identified more with female characters from books/movies, with songs about girls, etc. despite being really ashamed of it. I didn't know why I did it, but I used to pray to God every night as a kid wanting to become a girl; I was unaware of sexual stuff so I thought that was like the most innocent thing to wish for, so I was really depressed every morning. I thought every boy desperately wanted to be a girl (how could have I known, it was obviously not a question that one could ask from others) but they just accepted their fate. So I tried too, but it never worked, it just kept worsening.
And what is female self-images? I've asked this so many times, but noone have been able to answer me. Based on what you just wrote, about you relating more to girls, it's not about your gender self image, it's about you relating more to female stereotypes, and this is extremely common. I can personally relate more to girls in some ways (not in all ways), but that doesn't change my concept of gender. There's a great variance in ppl of the same sex. Not all men looks like and thinks like Sean Connery. He's much more traditionally masculine than me, because of hormonal levels and probably also because my brain have more traditionally feminine traits than his. I don't question my sex though. I consider Sean Connery to be more manly than me, but being manly is a neutral word for me. I'm ok with being who I am. That's not to say that I didn't envy ppl like him before, especially in my teens, but thanks to finding other male role models that are more like me, I've grown up and realized that we're all different, and that there are different ways of being attractive. Anyway, given by the great variance in our species, and the prominent and restricting stereotypes, it would be strange if ppl wasn't confused by their sex.
On December 06 2012 02:36 shinosai wrote: As far as the "natural characteristics of their biology," well, since we have people that are physically male as far as their bodies are concerned, and transition into female bodies, we have a lot of information on the differences between male and female biology. These differences have been empirically studied. They include, psychologically: Intenser experiences of emotions, increased sense of smell, easier to cry, etc. Unfortunately for you, they did not include the sudden elimination of the ability to do mathematics or someone's personal preferences in gender specific activities.
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
Well, yes, you've made it very clear that you think we're simply mentally confused.
But, in any case: There are very real psychological and physical changes associated with estrogen vs testosterone. Being easier to cry and having intense emotions are not stereotypes - you will feel these if you take estrogen. The interesting part is that you will also have a feeling that these psychological and physical changes are "correct" as a transsexual - but if you were simply a regular guy, these psychological changes would be extremely distressing to you.
Seriously, though, if you want to know what it feels like to be in the wrong body and experience a disconnect between gender identity and sex, it's not hard. Just go get yourself some hormone replacement therapy. (But first you're going to have to spend a lot of money and time convincing medical professionals that you actually need it, good luck with that)
On December 05 2012 21:22 Lynda wrote: In retrospect I vividly remember having female self-images as a kid (I didn't see them as "self-images" back then), and due to all the shame I tried to repress them. I didn't ever really feel like I was a male, rather I was feeling impersonal, genderless, dissociated from my body due to having to bury or externalize my self-image onto others (which always led to disappointment since I couldn't live through them). Female pronouns and terms always felt "right" to me (no other way to describe it) while male ones felt wrong, inaccurate. I didn't choose to feel that way about them. I had very long phases of denial and trying to work against it, but I couldn't change my intrinsic, subconscious feelings.
I always secretly identified more with female characters from books/movies, with songs about girls, etc. despite being really ashamed of it. I didn't know why I did it, but I used to pray to God every night as a kid wanting to become a girl; I was unaware of sexual stuff so I thought that was like the most innocent thing to wish for, so I was really depressed every morning. I thought every boy desperately wanted to be a girl (how could have I known, it was obviously not a question that one could ask from others) but they just accepted their fate. So I tried too, but it never worked, it just kept worsening.
And what is female self-images? I've asked this so many times, but noone have been able to answer me. Based on what you just wrote, about you relating more to girls, it's not about your gender self image, it's about you relating more to female stereotypes, and this is extremely common. I can personally relate more to girls in some ways (not in all ways), but that doesn't change my concept of gender. There's a great variance in ppl of the same sex. Not all men looks like and thinks like Sean Connery. He's much more traditionally masculine than me, because of hormonal levels and probably also because my brain have more traditionally feminine traits than his. I don't question my sex though. I consider Sean Connery to be more manly than me, but being manly is a neutral word for me. I'm ok with being who I am. That's not to say that I didn't envy ppl like him before, especially in my teens, but thanks to finding other male role models that are more like me, I've grown up and realized that we're all different, and that there are different ways of being attractive. Anyway, given by the great variance in our species, and the prominent and restricting stereotypes, it would be strange if ppl wasn't confused by their sex.
Whenever I didn't pay very close attention to my thoughts/imagination like when daydreaming, I always saw myself with a female body. It's not about relating more to girls, if it was just that, then I'd be an effeminate guy, and I tried to be that, but I don't want a male body, I fail to identify with male pronouns and terms the same way as with female pronouns and terms, I desperately desire a female body without being able to argue why other than because I feel this way, I've felt this way my entire life. I didn't choose to be this way, but I am, due to a birth defect. Physiologically, it'd make sense that a male body is supposed to have a neuroanatomy that accepts that body, so when the neuroanatomy doesn't match it, it expects a body image that is compatible with that neuroanatomy, hence female self-images, identifying with a female body, etc.
I've never really ever felt truly happy in my life whenever I didn't feel fully dissociated from my body (but how can I ask other people to also see me dissociatedly from my body?) and rather imagined myself with a female body (how can I ever actually express myself like that without actually transitioning to a female body?).
On December 05 2012 21:22 Lynda wrote: In retrospect I vividly remember having female self-images as a kid (I didn't see them as "self-images" back then), and due to all the shame I tried to repress them. I didn't ever really feel like I was a male, rather I was feeling impersonal, genderless, dissociated from my body due to having to bury or externalize my self-image onto others (which always led to disappointment since I couldn't live through them). Female pronouns and terms always felt "right" to me (no other way to describe it) while male ones felt wrong, inaccurate. I didn't choose to feel that way about them. I had very long phases of denial and trying to work against it, but I couldn't change my intrinsic, subconscious feelings.
I always secretly identified more with female characters from books/movies, with songs about girls, etc. despite being really ashamed of it. I didn't know why I did it, but I used to pray to God every night as a kid wanting to become a girl; I was unaware of sexual stuff so I thought that was like the most innocent thing to wish for, so I was really depressed every morning. I thought every boy desperately wanted to be a girl (how could have I known, it was obviously not a question that one could ask from others) but they just accepted their fate. So I tried too, but it never worked, it just kept worsening.
And what is female self-images? I've asked this so many times, but noone have been able to answer me. Based on what you just wrote, about you relating more to girls, it's not about your gender self image, it's about you relating more to female stereotypes, and this is extremely common. I can personally relate more to girls in some ways (not in all ways), but that doesn't change my concept of gender. There's a great variance in ppl of the same sex. Not all men looks like and thinks like Sean Connery. He's much more traditionally masculine than me, because of hormonal levels and probably also because my brain have more traditionally feminine traits than his. I don't question my sex though. I consider Sean Connery to be more manly than me, but being manly is a neutral word for me. I'm ok with being who I am. That's not to say that I didn't envy ppl like him before, especially in my teens, but thanks to finding other male role models that are more like me, I've grown up and realized that we're all different, and that there are different ways of being attractive. Anyway, given by the great variance in our species, and the prominent and restricting stereotypes, it would be strange if ppl wasn't confused by their sex.
On December 06 2012 02:36 shinosai wrote: As far as the "natural characteristics of their biology," well, since we have people that are physically male as far as their bodies are concerned, and transition into female bodies, we have a lot of information on the differences between male and female biology. These differences have been empirically studied. They include, psychologically: Intenser experiences of emotions, increased sense of smell, easier to cry, etc. Unfortunately for you, they did not include the sudden elimination of the ability to do mathematics or someone's personal preferences in gender specific activities.
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
I dunno if maybe this has been brought up before, but how do YOU know which gender you identify with? If you're a guy then you know you're a guy no matter how many feminine things you like because thats what you are its the same for transgendered individuals, but their gender that they identify with is not the one that they were assigned at birth. Its something you kind of just know.
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.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being:
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims.
Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them.
KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue.
Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked.
Arguing with a mod about gender issues certainly won't, provided you are civil. Arguing with a mod about moderation issues anywhere outside of the website feedback forum after an explicit warning not to will absolutely get you banned, he was warned for that exact offence. Arguing with a mod generally is fine though. I just wanted to address this before anyone got the wrong idea and the topic devolved further, if anyone has anything more to add then please PM me or take it to website feedback. Thank you.
Did you not issue him that warning? It does seem to be on the basis of you disagreeing with his argument.
The warning looks like a very clear threat to stop making arguments you disagree with, KwarK.
Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK
Maybe he faked that warning text, in which case I apologize.
I don't see you anywhere in this thread actually rebut his arguments, just that "warning" (threat) to stop saying things you disagree with.
EDIT: You say arguing about gender issues won't be punished, but gender issue arguments are the basis of the warning he was complaining about. If you hadn't issued a threat to stop disagreeing, he wouldn't have any complaint about moderation.
You are being disingenuous.
In particular:
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
How could he have cooperated? What does cooperation mean in this case? It seems like a very clear threat, and "cooperation" means shutting up and not disagreeing anymore.
User was banned for seeing a guy banned for disputing moderation in a topic rather than website feedback after a specific warning to not to do that and then deciding the correct route was to criticise it in the same topic rather than website feedback.
On December 06 2012 05:40 ninini wrote: And what is female self-images? I've asked this so many times, but noone have been able to answer me. Based on what you just wrote, about you relating more to girls, it's not about your gender self image, it's about you relating more to female stereotypes, and this is extremely common.
You're discounting all trans women who are androgynous or butch, and don't identify with female stereotypes.
I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
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?
Plot twist: The man was a straight woman the whole time.
Directed by M Night Shamapoop
Edit: The entire point of the thread is to point out that the person was a woman the whole time, they just changed their body to match their gender. If they were "gay" with male sex that means they are attracted to men...so when they changed their sex they should still be attracted to men.
Then what even is the meaning of a "woman"? If it's not simply biological sex, nor the characteristics typically attributed to it, what is it? If mentally feeling like a woman(whatever that means) makes you one then what is it? A desire to have female genitalia? I don't quite understand the "sense" of being male or female.
Again the genderbread person explains this distinction. But, anyways, look, you can't understand the "sense" of being a man or a woman because of your cissexual privilege. You have never had anyone question the fact that you are a guy, because your sex and your gender are in alignment.
I've had long hair for a decade and a half, so, yes. Yes, I have had people misidentify me, and even on rare occasion continue to insist that I am female even after I correct them. However, when I assert that I'm male, the vast majority of people understand what I'm claiming -- a simple, verifiable fact of physique.
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.
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.
What? Why would I hate dreaming about having a vagina and not a penis? That sounds pleasant enough -- and bonus points if I get to use it.
I'm happy to dream of being non-human. Why in the heck would non-male horrify me?
But hey, gender doesn't matter RIGHT? Maybe you would be just fine with a different sex organ all together.
Changing my body around would be a tad awkward, as I've inhabited it for a long time and am quite accustomed to its various properties. There'd need to be a big advantage to make up for the effort of adapting.
But, if I can swap to be some kind of female superhero? Fuck yes.
It seemingly isn't a part of how you feel on the inside at all.
Of course it's part of how I feel; it's wired to my brain. Plus, the testicles produce hormones.
On December 05 2012 21:22 Lynda wrote: In retrospect I vividly remember having female self-images as a kid (I didn't see them as "self-images" back then), and due to all the shame I tried to repress them. I didn't ever really feel like I was a male, rather I was feeling impersonal, genderless, dissociated from my body due to having to bury or externalize my self-image onto others (which always led to disappointment since I couldn't live through them). Female pronouns and terms always felt "right" to me (no other way to describe it) while male ones felt wrong, inaccurate. I didn't choose to feel that way about them. I had very long phases of denial and trying to work against it, but I couldn't change my intrinsic, subconscious feelings.
I always secretly identified more with female characters from books/movies, with songs about girls, etc. despite being really ashamed of it. I didn't know why I did it, but I used to pray to God every night as a kid wanting to become a girl; I was unaware of sexual stuff so I thought that was like the most innocent thing to wish for, so I was really depressed every morning. I thought every boy desperately wanted to be a girl (how could have I known, it was obviously not a question that one could ask from others) but they just accepted their fate. So I tried too, but it never worked, it just kept worsening.
And what is female self-images? I've asked this so many times, but noone have been able to answer me.
The problem is that you are conditioning your acceptance of gender dysphoria on:
1) The ability of others to describe how they feel to you.
2) Your ability to understand those descriptions.
#1 is difficult because describing feelings about anything abstract is difficult. It leads to misunderstandings (like this one). Entire books have been written that attempt to explain what gender dysphoria feels like.
#2 is difficult for any concept that someone else doesn't experience. We all interpret everything we read and here through our own perspective. You don't experience gender dysphoria, so you generally try to interpret it based on things you know, which lead to this misunderstanding.
The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
I think in some ways the brain would at least on a subconscious level recognize what it should or shouldn't see when seeing the mirror image, but as to how that would come to the surface to a conscious level, if ever, is an entirely different thing. It would be further problematic due to the fact that many trans people only actually consciously realise that they're trans in their 30s or 40s or even later, many of them claiming that they weren't actually repressing their feelings but rather they didn't really notice / pay attention to them, and that happened in the case of trans people who lived in a society for decades. I guess many trans people might've died without ever actually realising that they were trans. So trans individuals raised in insolation would even more likely not realise that they're trans, but at least they could freely express themselves without being forced into only socially acceptable roles for their assigned sex.
Also people who wouldn't realise they're trans would not feel as much detachment from their body from the start (therefore paradoxically making it harder for them to realise they're trans), which is because gender dysphoria mainly starts from the point of realising that you're trans, until then it's a lot weaker. But once the cat is out of the box that there's a solution, time is ticking against you, and decades of repression suddenly come back to the surface with an extremely intense sense of identity, that cat never goes back in. From there onwards it exponentially worsens.
On December 06 2012 06:45 Lynda wrote:It would be further problematic due to the fact that many trans people only actually consciously realise that they're trans in their 30s or 40s or even later, many of them claiming that they weren't actually repressing their feelings but rather they didn't really notice / pay attention to them, and that happened in the case of trans people who lived in a society for decades.
I actually believe that this is more of a socially constructed phenomenon. Trans people are coming out earlier and earlier now that there is more awareness, acceptance, and availability of treatment.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to ask that question when there's a very good chance that absolutely no one on the chance can answer it. It's an interesting question to think about and discuss, for sure, but I don't think anyone can answer it with any significant authority.
Doesn't matter what this particular organization says or any other organization.
The entire world can pretend something, doesn't make it true.
In 1000 years when medical science looks back at this time and see's we were "helping" people by mutilating their genitals they are gonna think we were a bunch of idiots.
On December 06 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: Doesn't matter what this particular organization says or any other organization.
The entire world can pretend something, doesn't make it true.
In 1000 years when medical science looks back at this time and see's we were "helping" people by mutilating their genitals they are gonna think we were a bunch of idiots.
Nah, if they see this thread, they'll only think of you
On December 06 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: Doesn't matter what this particular organization says or any other organization.
The entire world can pretend something, doesn't make it true.
In 1000 years when medical science looks back at this time and see's we were "helping" people by mutilating their genitals they are gonna think we were a bunch of idiots.
LOL, in 1000 years, gender might very well be an outdated concept.
Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
On December 06 2012 07:13 Zaqwert wrote: Doesn't matter what this particular organization says or any other organization.
The entire world can pretend something, doesn't make it true.
In 1000 years when medical science looks back at this time and see's we were "helping" people by mutilating their genitals they are gonna think we were a bunch of idiots.
LOL, in 1000 years, gender might very well be an outdated concept.
Gender was invented by hundreds of millions of years of evolution, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
I didn't know that Joseph Nicolosi had an account on these forums.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
On December 06 2012 07:36 Zaqwert wrote: LOL, I'm atheist, nice try though.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
There are already valid treatments, I don't understand why you believe that they are inherently wrong, while your proposed solution (which is currently impossible to execute) is inherently "better".
On December 06 2012 07:36 Zaqwert wrote: LOL, I'm atheist, nice try though.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
But part of the problem is, there are no other treatments. Which means it becomes about harm reduction, and altering the body is less harmful than persisting mental anguish.
On December 06 2012 07:36 Zaqwert wrote: LOL, I'm atheist, nice try though.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote: Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence.
There was actually a lot of research done regarding differences in neuroanatomy hinting at how one's gender identity is rooted in their neuroanatomy that does not match the rest of the body in the case of transsexual people, hence creating an incongruence between the sex of the brain (gender) and the sex of the body.
On December 06 2012 07:36 Zaqwert wrote: LOL, I'm atheist, nice try though.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
They are being treated. The hormonal treatments and surgery ARE exactly that. If there was a better way it would be used. But there is not and not for the lack of trying. And it actually helps. You are acting like whole psychiatric profession just gave up suddenly, they are doctors and are doing what is in the best interest of the patient based on their best knowledge. What are your qualifications ? Do you have anything to back up your contention that there is anything else that can be done that would make their lives better ?
On December 06 2012 07:43 jdseemoreglass wrote: But part of the problem is, there are no other treatments. Which means it becomes about harm reduction, and altering the body is less harmful than persisting mental anguish.
Yes, you're correct.
However, I'm don't think that most transgender people would choose to have their minds altered over their bodies. As you said earlier, most people associate their sense of self with their mind, rather than their body. I believe that if such a treatment were developed, it should become an OPTION, but I don't think that it would be inherently "right" or "better" than the currently available treatments (which would have also improved by that time).
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
Well, yes, you've made it very clear that you think we're simply mentally confused.
But, in any case: There are very real psychological and physical changes associated with estrogen vs testosterone. Being easier to cry and having intense emotions are not stereotypes - you will feel these if you take estrogen. The interesting part is that you will also have a feeling that these psychological and physical changes are "correct" as a transsexual - but if you were simply a regular guy, these psychological changes would be extremely distressing to you.
Seriously, though, if you want to know what it feels like to be in the wrong body and experience a disconnect between gender identity and sex, it's not hard. Just go get yourself some hormone replacement therapy. (But first you're going to have to spend a lot of money and time convincing medical professionals that you actually need it, good luck with that)
The thing is, me going to get hormone replacement therapy is only a viable comparison if there actually is such a thing as a mental gender, and that's where we disagree, so if I did try it and it didn't work, you would say that it didn't work because of my male mental gender, and I would say that it didn't work because of me going against my natural male physical gender. You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific. I've mentioned the placebo effect and how sometimes, just changing something that doesn't really matter can have a profound effect. It's also definately possible that some men would be happier living as female, because their natural tendencies are quite feminine stereotypically, or if they have been convinced by some other reason. There's a great variance in all of us, so it makes sense that the extremes are interested in other ways.
I've read most of the cited studies, that supposedly proves the concept of a mental gender, and neither of them proved anything more than that there were links between transgenders and their target sex. Links doesn't prove anything, because links can be explained by variation of the same sex, and certain extreme variations of one sex being more likely to adopt certain views or behaviour. There are also links that shows the opposite, very clear similarities between male and trans female, seperating them from female, which have been disregarded in some of the papers, probably because it's their jobs to find links, not to question the theory in itself.
In one of the studies, they measured specific neurons, and looked at men who had transitioned to females, comparing them to regular men, and a few of the regular men were well in range of the numbers shown by trans females, sometimes lower than a number of them. Does that mean that these normal men who had very low numbers actually are female gender too? No it doesn't, according to themselves. The only thing it proves is that men who showed lower numbers were more likely to want to trans to female, and this fits well in with my view, that extremes might feel uncomfortable with who they are, and for that reason, be more likely to come to dramatic conclusions. When you look at genetics, x and y, the difference is much more clear cut.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
Well, yes, you've made it very clear that you think we're simply mentally confused.
But, in any case: There are very real psychological and physical changes associated with estrogen vs testosterone. Being easier to cry and having intense emotions are not stereotypes - you will feel these if you take estrogen. The interesting part is that you will also have a feeling that these psychological and physical changes are "correct" as a transsexual - but if you were simply a regular guy, these psychological changes would be extremely distressing to you.
Seriously, though, if you want to know what it feels like to be in the wrong body and experience a disconnect between gender identity and sex, it's not hard. Just go get yourself some hormone replacement therapy. (But first you're going to have to spend a lot of money and time convincing medical professionals that you actually need it, good luck with that)
The thing is, me going to get hormone replacement therapy is only a viable comparison if there actually is such a thing as a mental gender, and that's where we disagree, so if I did try it and it didn't work, you would say that it didn't work because of my male mental gender, and I would say that it didn't work because of me going against my natural male physical gender. You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific. I've mentioned the placebo effect and how sometimes, just changing something that doesn't really matter can have a profound effect. It's also definately possible that some men would be happier living as female, because their natural tendencies are quite feminine stereotypically, or if they have been convinced by some other reason. There's a great variance in all of us, so it makes sense that the extremes are interested in other ways.
I've read most of the cited studies, that supposedly proves the concept of a mental gender, and neither of them proved anything more than that there were links between transgenders and their target sex. Links doesn't prove anything, because links can be explained by variation of the same sex, and certain extreme variations of one sex being more likely to adopt certain views or behaviour. There are also links that shows the opposite, very clear similarities between male and trans female, seperating them from female, which have been disregarded in some of the papers, probably because it's their jobs to find links, not to question the theory in itself.
In one of the studies, they measured specific neurons, and looked at men who had transitioned to females, comparing them to regular men, and a few of the regular men were well in range of the numbers shown by trans females, sometimes lower than a number of them. Does that mean that these normal men who had very low numbers actually are female gender too? No it doesn't, according to themselves. The only thing it proves is that men who showed lower numbers were more likely to want to trans to female, and this fits well in with my view, that extremes might feel uncomfortable with who they are, and for that reason, be more likely to come to dramatic conclusions. When you look at genetics, x and y, the difference is much more clear cut.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
Doubting mental gender is like doubting consciousness, you might do that as empty intellectual exercise, but denying its existence leads nowhere and its existence is kind of self-evident. Everything we think or feel has mental basis, so of course there is mental gender. Your question if it can ever be different from sexual gender is slightly better. But consider that even sexual gender is rather unclear and flimsy patchwork. What about XXY, XXX, hermaphrodites, ..... ? Gender and sex both are product of complex play of genes and environment and both of them often stray into deviation from norm. Even if there was no conclusive evidence the hypothesis that mental gender can differ from sexual one would be much more probable. But even though the evidence is not conclusive it is there making likelihood of that hypothesis even higher. And in science there are no proofs, just likelihoods. And that tells us that you are most likely wrong.
EDIT: Plus you show complete lack of understanding of statistics and complexity. In the studies they measure one attribute, so the fact that some men would fall into transwomen territory means absolutely nothing. Important part are correlations and statistical causal links. Your argument would only make sense if someone claimed that those particular attributes are everything that makes transwomen trans and not a man.
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set?
Hmmm.... I think we'll need to see some photos to be sure. I'm guessing it looks something like Michael Jackson though.
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
for male to female it is. feels about the same (like a "real" women, at least according to studies), and cant be distinguished from a biological one from outside (if done right). Three points are lacking: - self lubrication is rare to non existent (I know girls that have a similar issue, lube solves it) - no pregnancys - it has to be used (inserting sth, doesnt need to be sex), otherwise it could collapse after some time.
the other way doesnt work that well and is done very rarely
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
It's typically said that "passing" is easier for a transmale but that sexual reassignment surgeries are more 'complete' for transfemales. Specifically, with sexual reassignment for transmales, the clitoris is grown (over time) until it is a few inches in length, then they create a penis from it using surgery. The problem is that success is extremely varied.
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
It is definitely distinguishable, but in well done MtF as far as I know it is quite good, in case of FtM it is much less successful. On the other hand everyday life looks are the other way around I would guess.
On December 06 2012 07:36 Zaqwert wrote: LOL, I'm atheist, nice try though.
I'm not attacking transgender folks calling them sinners or evil. It's just clear they suffer from a major, complex disorder and people are so scared of offending them or making them feel bad we've given up on treating them and instead are just indulging their illness.
This is stupid beyond belief.
People offend transgenders and make them feel bad literally every single day, all the time. Especially people like you, but it isn't just you - it is everyone who can't accept people slightly different than them. Being trans is not something somebody would ever wish for or want, and it is something that negatively affects their entire life. Think before you speak.
This whole discussion is flawed imo. "they arnt really women"
With that comes the assumption that there is something unique biologically to being borne women.
Now this may be completely and utterly true.
But how "woman" "man" "femanine" "masculine" etc. are percieved and understood widely in no way reflects this.
If people who feel that the idea that someone can identify as femanine is stupid if your borne with genitals that do not conform to this.
Ask yourself this, How many things do you associate with ideas of femanine, and masculine. That can only be described by biological makeup? To phrase this better, how many of the things you associate with femanine and masculine would be impossible, to be characteristics of peoples personality, sexuality, how the feel, express themselves, idenfity. If they did not bioligically have a vagina or penis?
If you think about this honestly, I would suspect that you will be in a situation where you have a huge ammount of things you associate, but not very many you could uniquely say "only those borne with a vagina could feel this, express this, dress this, desire this" and vice versa.
Every single thing you can list as being unique to being biologically borne as a certain sex, fine, thinking yourself otherwise might be a disorder. However if you honestly engage in trying to come up with these things you'll find you have a huge number of things, but very little that can only be explained by "was born with x" (x being genitals)
From this perspective gender dysphoria might not be so unintelligable, although if it still is id be interested to hear the precise characteristics you identify as only being able to belong honestly to a person born of a certain sex.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
You have been shown research. You simply didn't accept that research. So explain this:
You are not a psychological professional. You haven't done the level of research that they have. You don't know what they know. You may have read some studies, but the fact is, you simply aren't as familiar with it as they are.
They say that mental gender is real. You don't buy it. By what reasoning do you say that your interpretation is correct and theirs is all wrong?
See, it's not they who have to prove anything. It's you. Just like with people who argue against scientific consensus on other topics, it's you who needs to provide evidence of your position.
On December 06 2012 08:38 XeliN wrote: This whole discussion is flawed imo. "they arnt really women"
With that comes the assumption that there is something unique biologically to being borne women.
Now this may be completely and utterly true.
But how "woman" "man" "femanine" "masculine" etc. are percieved and understood widely in no way reflects this.
If people who feel that the idea that someone can identify as femanine is stupid if your borne with genitals that do not conform to this.
Ask yourself this, How many things do you associate with ideas of femanine, and masculine. That can only be described by biological makeup? To phrase this better, how many of the things you associate with femanine and masculine would be impossible, to be characteristics of peoples personality, sexuality, how the feel, express themselves, idenfity. If they did not bioligically have a vagina or penis?
If you think about this honestly, I would suspect that you will be in a situation where you have a huge ammount of things you associate, but not very many you could uniquely say "only those borne with a vagina could feel this, express this, dress this, desire this" and vice versa.
Every single thing you can list as being unique to being biologically borne as a certain sex, fine, thinking yourself otherwise might be a disorder. However if you honestly engage in trying to come up with these things you'll find you have a huge number of things, but very little that can only be explained by "was born with x" (x being genitals)
From this perspective gender dysphoria might not be so unintelligable, although if it still is id be interested to hear the precise characteristics you identify as only being able to belong honestly to a person born of a certain sex.
That is another extreme. A lot of biologically given characteristics of sexes are projected into social roles and important thing again is statistics. The fact that there are boys playing with dolls does not mean that the observation that boys usually don't is not valid and important.
On December 06 2012 08:28 dcemuser wrote: Being trans is not something somebody would ever wish for or want, and it is something that negatively affects their entire life. Think before you speak.
This is an important point and I think people have brought it up earlier in the thread, but the reason being transgender is so hard is because it's not deemed acceptable by society, as opposed to an actual mental disorder where, while you're also not accepted by society, you have the additional problem of a mental or emotional or social handicap.
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
for male to female it is. feels about the same (like a "real" women, at least according to studies), and cant be distinguished from a biological one from outside (if done right). Three points are lacking: - self lubrication is rare to non existent (I know girls that have a similar issue, lube solves it) - no pregnancys - it has to be used (inserting sth, doesnt need to be sex), otherwise it could collapse after some time.
the other way doesnt work that well and is done very rarely
Hmm, ok. But despite the imperfect procedures, it's far more viable than the other option - which would be to alter the brain so that the person's mind matches their sex. Even if that were viable (which it will be eventually), people usually value their minds too much to want to change that. The options really suck for them -_-.
On December 06 2012 08:38 XeliN wrote: This whole discussion is flawed imo. "they arnt really women"
With that comes the assumption that there is something unique biologically to being borne women.
Now this may be completely and utterly true.
But how "woman" "man" "femanine" "masculine" etc. are percieved and understood widely in no way reflects this.
If people who feel that the idea that someone can identify as femanine is stupid if your borne with genitals that do not conform to this.
Ask yourself this, How many things do you associate with ideas of femanine, and masculine. That can only be described by biological makeup? To phrase this better, how many of the things you associate with femanine and masculine would be impossible, to be characteristics of peoples personality, sexuality, how the feel, express themselves, idenfity. If they did not bioligically have a vagina or penis?
If you think about this honestly, I would suspect that you will be in a situation where you have a huge ammount of things you associate, but not very many you could uniquely say "only those borne with a vagina could feel this, express this, dress this, desire this" and vice versa.
Every single thing you can list as being unique to being biologically borne as a certain sex, fine, thinking yourself otherwise might be a disorder. However if you honestly engage in trying to come up with these things you'll find you have a huge number of things, but very little that can only be explained by "was born with x" (x being genitals)
From this perspective gender dysphoria might not be so unintelligable, although if it still is id be interested to hear the precise characteristics you identify as only being able to belong honestly to a person born of a certain sex.
That is another extreme. A lot of biologically given characteristics of sexes are projected into social roles and important thing again is statistics. The fact that there are boys playing with dolls does not mean that the observation that boys usually don't is not valid and important.
In saying that you reduce the argument to "how most people behave and think" I would agree with you even to the extent that 99.9% of peope do not engage in, say, being born male yet playing with dolls. But what does that say?
To me the idea that "most peope in this situation do this, is a meaningless statement in regard to "mental disorder" unless you strickly define mental disorder as that which most people do not do.
And if you do that then I'll shock you, how most people think, act, identify, desire and act today would be considered a mental disorder to people from the 1900's....
On December 06 2012 08:38 XeliN wrote: This whole discussion is flawed imo. "they arnt really women"
With that comes the assumption that there is something unique biologically to being borne women.
Now this may be completely and utterly true.
But how "woman" "man" "femanine" "masculine" etc. are percieved and understood widely in no way reflects this.
If people who feel that the idea that someone can identify as femanine is stupid if your borne with genitals that do not conform to this.
Ask yourself this, How many things do you associate with ideas of femanine, and masculine. That can only be described by biological makeup? To phrase this better, how many of the things you associate with femanine and masculine would be impossible, to be characteristics of peoples personality, sexuality, how the feel, express themselves, idenfity. If they did not bioligically have a vagina or penis?
If you think about this honestly, I would suspect that you will be in a situation where you have a huge ammount of things you associate, but not very many you could uniquely say "only those borne with a vagina could feel this, express this, dress this, desire this" and vice versa.
Every single thing you can list as being unique to being biologically borne as a certain sex, fine, thinking yourself otherwise might be a disorder. However if you honestly engage in trying to come up with these things you'll find you have a huge number of things, but very little that can only be explained by "was born with x" (x being genitals)
From this perspective gender dysphoria might not be so unintelligable, although if it still is id be interested to hear the precise characteristics you identify as only being able to belong honestly to a person born of a certain sex.
That is another extreme. A lot of biologically given characteristics of sexes are projected into social roles and important thing again is statistics. The fact that there are boys playing with dolls does not mean that the observation that boys usually don't is not valid and important.
In saying that you reduce the argument to "how most people behave and think" I would agree with you even to the extent that 99.9% of peope do not engage in, say, being born male yet playing with dolls. But what does that say?
To me the idea that "most peope in this situation do this, is a meaningless statement in regard to "mental disorder" unless you strickly define mental disorder as that which most people do not do.
And if you do that then I'll shock you, how most people think, act, identify, desire and act today would be considered a mental disorder to people from the 1900's....
I was more reacting to your portrayal of gender as socially determined instead of biologically. Most of your post was not about disorder so I reacted to that part. And it is false that "what most people do" is meaningless in regard to determining what is mental disorder. Being unable to principially function well in society is one reason to say something is mental disorder, and some conformity is necessary.
Those were some really good posts by packrat386, shinosai, and Lynda.
I don't think I can read through this thread without becoming very frustrated, so I'm glad you to see some reasonable people posted and that you put them in the OP.
There was a report in 2011 that went over a lot of the discrimination they face. I don't think most people are aware of how much they deal with so I really encourage everyone to look through the report summary. The study is based on 6,145 transgender and non-gender conforming participants from throughout the U.S. Here are some excerpts from the executive summary (source http://endtransdiscrimination.org/PDFs/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf ):
-A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
-Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
-Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
-Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
-Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or selling drugs).
-One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
-Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.
-Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, buses, airports and government agencies.
-Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
-Uninformed doctors: 50% of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
-Postponed care: Survey participants reported that when they were sick or injured, many postponed medical care due to discrimination (28%) or inability to afford it (48%).
-Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection.
The amount of discrimination is absolutely terrifying. But the saddest part of all this is how ignored it still is, and how so many still seem to think this discrimination is okay.
This was a big step, though. And hopefully we can start moving towards getting rid of institutional discrimination completely, which unfortunately still exists in laws in the United States for homosexuals and transgendered individuals.
thats fair tbh, but in regards to this specific issue, I can't see how the inability to function well in society is based on something tangible and justifiable.
So in that defintion a black person who has aspiriations of beng treated equally as a white person in developed nations may have a mental disorder.
But in terms of morality I would think that it is society... and how they react to that person, and not them, who should change in order to address this "disorder"
Edit: I should add this analogy is no longer the case, weve moved on as a society to recognise such a distinction would be false. But in regard to this issue, is that not the point?
You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific.
From a person whose entire position is based on this:
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
Please at least TRY to look at things objectively. At this point you aren't even speaking the same language as everyone else because you are totally blinded by the cis person privilege that has been discussed to death in this thread. You seem incabable of accepting, even theoretically, that a person's self constructed internal gender is different from his or her externally expressed gender. As a result you are rejecting out of hand all the evidence that is contrary to your view.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's frustrating that you keep demanding that others "prove" something which most accept as scientifically established, without providing any reason for your beliefs about the subject, except the way you feel about it.
Before, you said that it was impossible to explain what it felt like to be the female gender, and now you just said that they have more intense emotions, and have easier to cry. That's pretty specific I have to say. You know what, those are typical stereotypes of the female sex, and they are also stereotypes of men who are more effeminate. And this also fits the other post I quoted above. To me it seems like you are mixing up your so called mental gender (that supposedly only transgenders can understand), and the sociological gender (which is obvious to all of us), and that's what I've been saying all along.
Well, yes, you've made it very clear that you think we're simply mentally confused.
But, in any case: There are very real psychological and physical changes associated with estrogen vs testosterone. Being easier to cry and having intense emotions are not stereotypes - you will feel these if you take estrogen. The interesting part is that you will also have a feeling that these psychological and physical changes are "correct" as a transsexual - but if you were simply a regular guy, these psychological changes would be extremely distressing to you.
Seriously, though, if you want to know what it feels like to be in the wrong body and experience a disconnect between gender identity and sex, it's not hard. Just go get yourself some hormone replacement therapy. (But first you're going to have to spend a lot of money and time convincing medical professionals that you actually need it, good luck with that)
The thing is, me going to get hormone replacement therapy is only a viable comparison if there actually is such a thing as a mental gender, and that's where we disagree, so if I did try it and it didn't work, you would say that it didn't work because of my male mental gender, and I would say that it didn't work because of me going against my natural male physical gender. You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific. I've mentioned the placebo effect and how sometimes, just changing something that doesn't really matter can have a profound effect. It's also definately possible that some men would be happier living as female, because their natural tendencies are quite feminine stereotypically, or if they have been convinced by some other reason. There's a great variance in all of us, so it makes sense that the extremes are interested in other ways.
I've read most of the cited studies, that supposedly proves the concept of a mental gender, and neither of them proved anything more than that there were links between transgenders and their target sex. Links doesn't prove anything, because links can be explained by variation of the same sex, and certain extreme variations of one sex being more likely to adopt certain views or behaviour. There are also links that shows the opposite, very clear similarities between male and trans female, seperating them from female, which have been disregarded in some of the papers, probably because it's their jobs to find links, not to question the theory in itself.
In one of the studies, they measured specific neurons, and looked at men who had transitioned to females, comparing them to regular men, and a few of the regular men were well in range of the numbers shown by trans females, sometimes lower than a number of them. Does that mean that these normal men who had very low numbers actually are female gender too? No it doesn't, according to themselves. The only thing it proves is that men who showed lower numbers were more likely to want to trans to female, and this fits well in with my view, that extremes might feel uncomfortable with who they are, and for that reason, be more likely to come to dramatic conclusions. When you look at genetics, x and y, the difference is much more clear cut.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
Doubting mental gender is like doubting consciousness, you might do that as empty intellectual exercise, but denying its existence leads nowhere and its existence is kind of self-evident. Everything we think or feel has mental basis, so of course there is mental gender. Your question if it can ever be different from sexual gender is slightly better. But consider that even sexual gender is rather unclear and flimsy patchwork. What about XXY, XXX, hermaphrodites, ..... ? Gender and sex both are product of complex play of genes and environment and both of them often stray into deviation from norm. Even if there was no conclusive evidence the hypothesis that mental gender can differ from sexual one would be much more probable. But even though the evidence is not conclusive it is there making likelihood of that hypothesis even higher. And in science there are no proofs, just likelihoods. And that tells us that you are most likely wrong.
EDIT: Plus you show complete lack of understanding of statistics and complexity. In the studies they measure one attribute, so the fact that some men would fall into transwomen territory means absolutely nothing. Important part are correlations and statistical causal links. Your argument would only make sense if someone claimed that those particular attributes are everything that makes transwomen trans and not a man.
Yeah, it's the idea that your sexual gender and mental gender could be different that I don't agree with. I'm well aware that gender is hard to distinguish in rare cases, but that's part of why I dislike how much importance trans people put on gender. To me, gender identity is not important, and I look up to ppl who try to break the stereotypes. Some might feel like the other gender according to societies stereotypes, but in my view they shouldn't worry about stereotypes and just be the person they were born as.
And I didn't make any conclusions based on the studies. That specific study didn't prove anything, but it pointed more in the direction of males with very extreme values being more at risk of adopting certain behaviour, rather than the idea I've heard here, that there would be a distinct difference between the brains of trans female and normal male. When you see tendencies, and average numbers pointing in one direction, but no clear boundary or border, it points more towards the concept of risk groups.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
You have been shown research. You simply didn't accept that research. So explain this:
You are not a psychological professional. You haven't done the level of research that they have. You don't know what they know. You may have read some studies, but the fact is, you simply aren't as familiar with it as they are.
They say that mental gender is real. You don't buy it. By what reasoning do you say that your interpretation is correct and theirs is all wrong?
See, it's not they who have to prove anything. It's you. Just like with people who argue against scientific consensus on other topics, it's you who needs to provide evidence of your position.
They haven't proven anything. They have just removed the disorder factor, and no longer oppose the behaviour. Please link me to somewhere where a doctor explains why gender identity outside of the physical gender exists. I sure can't find it.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
Please at least TRY to look at things objectively. At this point you aren't even speaking the same language as everyone else because you are totally blinded by the cis person privilege that has been discussed to death in this thread. You seem incabable of accepting, even theoretically, that a person's self constructed internal gender is different from his or her externally expressed gender. As a result you are rejecting out of hand all the evidence that is contrary to your view.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's frustrating that you keep demanding that others "prove" something which most accept as scientifically established, without providing any reason for your beliefs about the subject, except the way you feel about it.
That was a simple thought exercise for crying out loud. I'm not building my entire view on that example.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
You have been shown research. You simply didn't accept that research. So explain this:
You are not a psychological professional. You haven't done the level of research that they have. You don't know what they know. You may have read some studies, but the fact is, you simply aren't as familiar with it as they are.
They say that mental gender is real. You don't buy it. By what reasoning do you say that your interpretation is correct and theirs is all wrong?
See, it's not they who have to prove anything. It's you. Just like with people who argue against scientific consensus on other topics, it's you who needs to provide evidence of your position.
They haven't proven anything. They have just removed the disorder factor, and no longer oppose the behaviour. Please link me to somewhere where a doctor explains why gender identity outside of the physical gender exists. I sure can't find it.
You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific.
From a person whose entire position is based on this:
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
Please at least TRY to look at things objectively. At this point you aren't even speaking the same language as everyone else because you are totally blinded by the cis person privilege that has been discussed to death in this thread. You seem incabable of accepting, even theoretically, that a person's self constructed internal gender is different from his or her externally expressed gender. As a result you are rejecting out of hand all the evidence that is contrary to your view.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's frustrating that you keep demanding that others "prove" something which most accept as scientifically established, without providing any reason for your beliefs about the subject, except the way you feel about it.
That was a simple thought exercise for crying out loud. I'm not building my entire view on that example.
Can you please explain then what you are basing your view on? I may have missed it, but to me it looks like you are saying (and I'm paraphrasing):
"I believe that there is no difference between a person's internally constructed gender and his or her outwardly expressed sexual appearance. If you are a male, you have to look more or less like a male and vice versa. I believe this because I personally don't feel a sense of 'maleness' that is distinct from my outward appearance."
For the record, I also don't know what it is like to feel like a male. I just am, and I don't go around thinking "wow, it's so great that I'm a guy who looks like a guy." Like you, I can't understand what it would feel like if my outward appearance didn't match my internal gender determination. However, over the years I have looked at the available studies and statistics, read personal accounts, and discussed this issue with many people, both transexual and otherwise. Based on this experience, I am confident in saying that the reason I don't go around thinking "wow, it's so great that I'm a guy who looks like a guy" is because I take it for granted. This hasn't stopped me from looking at the issue objectively, which, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't appear that you have attempted.
If you are trying to make a point, it is a very flawed one.
There is MUCH more to being a woman than reproduction. Indeed, there are many cisgender women who can't have babies, and nobody directly challenges their gender. Moreover, there are many trans men who CAN have babies, but they are still men. And finally, this will be entirely bunk once medical science allows trans women to have babies.
It seems I've reached a new climax in my career as an internet troll, getting someone to react and argue against a Monty Python clip.
On December 06 2012 06:37 NicolBolas wrote: The problem is with your question itself; you're asking the wrong thing. You shouldn't condition your acceptance of gender dysphoria based on the ability of others to describe it. You should condition it based on the available facts. The question you should be asking is this: what is the available evidence around gender dysphoria?
Psychologists have determined that gender dysphoria is real. There are numerous papers about the concept and other concepts relating to gender.
So the question I have for you is this: do you accept the majority opinion of most of the people who have done research into the field? Or do you not?
That's what I'm doing. I'm asking for research showing proof, but I haven't found any. I don't deny that gender dysphoria is real. I do believe that trans women, made the choice they made because of being convinced it was the right thing. But when they say that they did it because their mental gender wasn't the same as their body, I don't buy it, and noone have been able to prove that concept. I think it's just a way to justify their actions, and to convince themselves that they are the new gender. I think that they should be able to do what they want, but I don't accept when they use theories and claim they are facts, because it misleads ppl.
You have been shown research. You simply didn't accept that research. So explain this:
You are not a psychological professional. You haven't done the level of research that they have. You don't know what they know. You may have read some studies, but the fact is, you simply aren't as familiar with it as they are.
They say that mental gender is real. You don't buy it. By what reasoning do you say that your interpretation is correct and theirs is all wrong?
See, it's not they who have to prove anything. It's you. Just like with people who argue against scientific consensus on other topics, it's you who needs to provide evidence of your position.
They haven't proven anything. They have just removed the disorder factor, and no longer oppose the behaviour. Please link me to somewhere where a doctor explains why gender identity outside of the physical gender exists. I sure can't find it.
On December 06 2012 09:09 Mercy13 wrote: This:
You're using yourself as an example to show that it works, but using yourself to make a point is not very scientific.
From a person whose entire position is based on this:
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
Please at least TRY to look at things objectively. At this point you aren't even speaking the same language as everyone else because you are totally blinded by the cis person privilege that has been discussed to death in this thread. You seem incabable of accepting, even theoretically, that a person's self constructed internal gender is different from his or her externally expressed gender. As a result you are rejecting out of hand all the evidence that is contrary to your view.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's frustrating that you keep demanding that others "prove" something which most accept as scientifically established, without providing any reason for your beliefs about the subject, except the way you feel about it.
That was a simple thought exercise for crying out loud. I'm not building my entire view on that example.
Can you please explain then what you are basing your view on? I may have missed it, but to me it looks like you are saying (and I'm paraphrasing):
"I believe that there is no difference between a person's internally constructed gender and his or her outwardly expressed sexual appearance. If you are a male, you have to look more or less like a male and vice versa. I believe this because I personally don't feel a sense of 'maleness' that is distinct from my outward appearance."
For the record, I also don't know what it is like to feel like a male. I just am, and I don't go around thinking "wow, it's so great that I'm a guy who looks like a guy." Like you, I can't understand what it would feel like if my outward appearance didn't match my internal gender determination. However, over the years I have looked at the available studies and statistics, read personal accounts, and discussed this issue with many people, both transexual and otherwise. Based on this experience, I am confident in saying that the reason I don't go around thinking "wow, it's so great that I'm a guy who looks like a guy" is because I take it for granted. This hasn't stopped me from looking at the issue objectively, which, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't appear that you have attempted.
The concept of a gender is independent from the physical gender makes very little sense, as it's your genes and DNA that constructs the brain. If you question your DNA and its gender (or potentially genders), you question your own existence. I suggest that instead of questioning your gender, question your and others views on the genders. The fact that ppl here, one day says that it's impossible to explain this mental gender, and the next day talks about relating/not relating to stereotypes, makes their opinions seem fishy in my book.
The concept of gender confusion is very easy to explain on the other hand, and it's something that can be explained easily. Typically, it's about the individual feeling that they're an outsider, that they can't relate to ppl of their gender, and there are several scientific explanations to why one might feel that way, but the most obvious one would be the testosterone/estrogen levels.
On December 06 2012 11:33 ninini wrote: as it's your genes and DNA that constructs the brain. If you question your DNA and its gender (or potentially genders), you question your own existence.
How much information does it take to completely describe a genome?
How much information does it take to completely describe a consciousness?
edit:
On December 06 2012 11:33 ninini wrote: one day says that it's impossible to explain this mental gender
The concept of a gender is independent from the physical gender makes very little sense, as it's your genes and DNA that constructs the brain.
I am no expert on genetics, but I'm pretty sure that different parts of your genes determine different parts of your body. One set of genes is responsible for the brain, another set of genes is responsible for your eye color, another set of genes is responsible for your sex, and so on and so on. Is it that hard to believe that there can be a disconnect between the genes that determine how your brain is wired, and those that determine your sex?
If you question your DNA and its gender (or potentially genders), you question your own existence. I suggest that instead of questioning your gender, question your and others views on the genders.
I'm pretty sure the trans people in this thread don't question their gender - their gender is their internal sex determination, or, in other words, the way they feel, independant from the primary and secondary sex characteristics that they outwardly express. If trans people had doubts about their gender, I doubt they would subject themselves to horrible discrimination, expensive treatments, and extensive surgeries. Also I'm very sure no one who has posted here questions his or her existence.
The fact that ppl here, one day says that it's impossible to explain this mental gender, and the next day talks about relating/not relating to stereotypes, makes their opinions seem fishy in my book.
The way I understand it, the way a gender feels cannot be put into words because it's an abstract and highly subjective concept. It's like trying to explain what blue looks like - you can't describe it without referring to the thing you are describing.
I don't know what you are getting at with the comment about relating to stereotypes.
The concept of gender confusion is very easy to explain on the other hand, and it's something that can be explained easily. Typically, it's about the individual feeling that they're an outsider, that they can't relate to ppl of their gender, and there are several scientific explanations to why one might feel that way, but the most obvious one would be the testosterone/estrogen levels.
What are you talking about when you say "gender confusion"? Whatever it is you are referring to, I doubt it is easy to explain, because anything dealing with the relationship between gender and sex implicates the way genetics interact with the structure of the brain, physiology, psychology, sociology, and probably a dozen other fields. If you find this subject easy to explain I suggest your write a paper on it. It would probably make you famous.
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).
I wanted to reply to this little bit; many people have an issue with transsexualism because they believe the body is the be-all end-all of what constitutes "what" you are. I feel this perspective often neglects the importance of the brain. It is arguable, and I would assert, that the brain is at the end of the day the most important aspect of a human, considering that all other functions rely in it solely.
Of course, there is really no answer to the question, as it's mostly subjective--is the body (EXCLUDING the brain) the ultimate decider, or is the brain the decider? To say one is the problem or the other is really a moot statement--as neither is in alignment with the other, and just like two people arguing over who will get to walk through the door first, both insisting the opposite take priority out of politeness, neither is truly exempt from being considered a part of the problem.
Ultimately, however, in our current stage of science, it makes more sense to treat the body--attempts to cure the brain over the rest of the body have ultimately all proven failures (again, most of the time with the test subject blowing their brains out.) Changing the body to match the brain is significantly easier, and desirable outcomes (relative to the trans individuals perspective) are achievable.
The question then becomes, if we could cure both as we can currently (mostly) cure the body now, which WOULD we cure? I'd suggest that decision be left up to the individual, but as an opinion I'd suggest that giving up my gender identity would be akin to giving up the core of my personality. As such, I'll take the hormones and the stupid expensive surgery over the theoretical miracle pill--but that's just me, I'm sure there's others who would opt for the later.
To conclude, I would suggest that both are the problem. One just (currently) makes more sense to treat, because it actually provides quality of life benefit.
Hi there. I'm back. I just wanted to talk about why I would not want to be "cured" from my (apparent) mental defect.
Pretty much ever since I entered middle school something has felt very off to me. I was never really sure what it was. I had this depression that existed for no reason at all. Nothing explained it, absolutely nothing. I could not figure out what it was but the whole world just felt pointless, and I could not understand why. I didn't exactly want to kill myself, but dying seemed like a wonderful alternative.
I always felt like I was "acting." I became hyperaware of social norms and learned how to interact with people extremely mechanically. I have absolutely marvelous social skills when it comes to one on one conversations, but this is me practically mimicking mannerisms from popular suave movie actors who completely personify the "alpha male" (think david duchovny). And this got me laid sometimes, sure, but I was always very aware of the fact that I was acting.
People say things like "be yourself." Problem - I had no idea what that was. I could not for the life of me figure out what being myself was like, I could only act out the social behaviors that I was supposed to. And for the most part I blended in.
And then one day, I saw this random youtube video of someone's transitioning video, and the lightbulb turned on. Every repressed memory that I had of wanting to be female resurfaced - there were many over the years that I had completely forgotten and hadn't thought about, but there they were. And for the first time in my life everything made sense - I finally understood why everything had always been "off" but I couldn't put a label on it. But still, I couldn't be sure. After all, maybe I just "wanted" to be female. Maybe I had some sort of fucked up fetish.
Every person in this thread that has questioned the reality of transgenderism - that has suggested that it may just be a mental "confusion" of some sort... well, these thoughts all occurred to me. And I had to think about these things in depth probably for far more than you will ever dream of. I had to challenge myself to the highest degree. How could I be sure if I was "really" trans?
But then when I dressed the part, and saw myself for the first time, it just felt "right." I finally felt like myself. It explained everything. It just made me so happy to see myself in that way.
So, if someone wanted to give me a pill, and magically change my brain to match my gender, you know what that would be? That would be the ultimate disguise. It would finally complete me as an actor. It would make me that thing I had always been trying to fake. But you know what: I don't want to be fake. I don't even like that person that I was trying to be. Because that person wasn't me.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
On December 06 2012 07:55 Demonhunter04 wrote: How effective are sex reassignment surgeries, in particular of the genitals? Is the final result visually and functionally indistinguishable from a standard set? The process must be incredibly complex and difficult. Also, if any trans people in here are willing to share on this subject, please do.
Depends on the standard of effectiveness. I'll speak for MtF (Male assigned at birth to female sex.): Visually close to identical--sans absence of the cervix, some gynecologists have stated that it is difficult to readily tell the difference. I don't have a source for that offhand though, and even if I did it'd be anecdotal. Inability to reproduce--obviously... Inability to self-lubricate--in most cases... though there is evidence to suggest that over time the tissue changes into a pseudo-mucosal tissue. Dilation is required to prevent reduction in depth--I hear it hurts like a bitch to dilate at first too. Sensation can be retained--orgasm and the like can be achieved.
One of the main methods used these days is a modified form of penile inversion. Essential, the penile skin is opened, and the main erectile tissue is discarded. The penile tissue is then used to create the labia majora and minora, as it is more sensitive tissue, and the glans penis ('head') is used to fashion the clitoris. The scrotal tissue is then used to create the vaginal cavity, after a follicle scraping.
So yeah, it's pretty good results.
FtM is not so advanced, but some consider it desirable enough to undergo.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
From what we know of the Y chromosome, it doesn't actually do that much relating exclusively to gender. The primary difference is in the levels of hormone production it enables. To look further into transgender issues, the Y chromosome isn't going to be nearly as useful as looking into the brain's interaction with androgens (especially in utero).
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Whoa there
Can you fill in the missing steps in your argument?
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
yay! Who else thought of Leiya aka PuCk when you saw this its just how people feel about them self's we have no right to say it's a disorder and we should fix it.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I suffered gender dysphoria because my body wasn't quite lined up with my mind. It's a short speculation from there that I'd have developed dysphoria from my body on some level or another. Whether its onset would have been at the same time is pure speculation, and of course we're discussing a purely hypothetical scenario.
And I do need surgery if I want legal recognition on many levels in the united states
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I suffered gender dysphoria because my body wasn't quite lined up with my mind. It's a short speculation from there that I'd have developed dysphoria from my body on some level or another. Whether its onset would have been at the same time is pure speculation, and of course we're discussing a purely hypothetical scenario.
And I do need surgery if I want legal recognition on many levels in the united states
Would you need a surgery if everyone around you acted as if you were completely normal no matter what you did and you were legally (and beyond that) recognized on every level?
Has everyone here heard of the deaf lifestyle advocates crowd?
Basically there is this group of people that believe being born deaf is not a birth defect, but is simply a different way to experience life and is important to who someone is and thus no treatment should be made.
These people OPPOSE treatments that would help a deaf person gain the sense of hearing. Think think that performing surgery on them or cochlear implants and such are bad. They think defining what "normal" human functioning is and forcing people into that mold is wrong, etc. These people have been known to harass parents who are seeking treatments for their deaf child.
Look, nobody wants to be thought of as defective, but some people clearly are. It sucks that some people are dealt shitty hands at the start of life. Some people are born with bad hearts, others are born blind, other people are born with Down Syndrome, some people are born hermaphrodites, some people have paranoid schizophrenia, others are psychotics, etc.
People with birth defects or mental disorders need help and treatment. They've had to put up with ridicule and scorn for so long and made to feel bad about their defects and that's tragic.
But to simply whitewash it all and start claiming things that are abnormal defects aren't, purely just to make them feel better about themselves is simply an abdication of responsibility and destructive in the long run.
I feel we are going down that route now as a society. We are so concerned with not offending people who have problems we simply pretend like they don't have a problem anymore, but that's not helping anyone.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
On December 06 2012 12:57 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: yay! Who else thought of Leiya aka PuCk when you saw this its just how people feel about them self's we have no right to say it's a disorder and we should fix it.
So glad that some people can realize the kind of far reaching effects this advance has even within our community.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Whoa there
Can you fill in the missing steps in your argument?
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Schizophrenia and autism would likely manifest themselves regardless of the environment, homosexuality as well, to an extent.
Unless you were attracted to same sex your transsexuality (if that's even a proper term) would not be as obvious of a problem if you were to grow up without social interaction. You behavior would likely not emulate that of a woman at all.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
Not everything is coded, you should look into the nature vs nurture debate and realize that almost all characteristics are affected largely by upbringing and experience and not solely genetics.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
Not everything is coded, you should look into the nature vs nurture debate and realize that almost all characteristics are affected largely by upbringing and experience and not solely genetics.
I'm pretty sure the structure of your brain and the structure of your genitals is the result of genetics. And the fact that gender is determined from birth, probably means nurture isn't contributing a whole lot.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I suffered gender dysphoria because my body wasn't quite lined up with my mind. It's a short speculation from there that I'd have developed dysphoria from my body on some level or another. Whether its onset would have been at the same time is pure speculation, and of course we're discussing a purely hypothetical scenario.
And I do need surgery if I want legal recognition on many levels in the united states
Would you need a surgery if everyone around you acted as if you were completely normal no matter what you did and you were legally (and beyond that) recognized on every level?
I can't speak for Alay but think about this hypothetical. If you were man with a vagina, wouldn't you still want a penis *even if* everyone treated you like a perfectly "normal" guy. I imagine that the answer for many men would be a resounding yes.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
Not everything is coded, you should look into the nature vs nurture debate and realize that almost all characteristics are affected largely by upbringing and experience and not solely genetics.
I'm pretty sure the structure of your brain and the structure of your genitals is the result of genetics. And the fact that gender is determined from birth, probably means nurture isn't contributing a whole lot.
This is actually a key point in this whole debate. If it's not a birth defect, than it warrants a completely different approach.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Whoa there
Can you fill in the missing steps in your argument?
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Schizophrenia and autism would likely manifest themselves regardless of the environment, homosexuality as well, to an extent.
Unless you were attracted to same sex your transsexuality (if that's even a proper term) would not be as obvious of a problem if you were to grow up without social interaction. You behavior would likely not emulate that of a woman at all.
You just changed the scenario. Now the person grows up and then enters society. Well, in this case, the person would then be able to discover their transsexualism. Just like the gay person would suddenly discover that he's different - he likes men, and not everyone else does. And the schizophrenic would realize upon his social interactions that hey, not everyone sees hallucinations. Or, hey, I seem to be seeing things that other people don't... And the transsexual upon his or her interaction, might eventually realize: Hey! I identify more as female...
But in the absence of environment, of course schizophrenia and autism would manifest themselves, just as I believe transsexualism would. But you would never KNOW that you had these disorders without someone else to compare yourself to. Likewise, you couldn't know that you identified as female if you had no males/females to compare yourself to. The brain expects itself to be a certain sex, but you could not identify this expectation if you didn't even know what a female looked like.
I just don't see how the requirement of social interaction somehow makes it less real.
thinking about phenotype as "coded" in genotype is precisely the wrong way to think about things
edit: genotype develops into phenotype by interacting with environment in its process of ontogeny. Environment is much more than "nurture" (as a naive way of thinking about social impact). My guess would be that the abnormal development resulting in trans occurs quite early in ontogeny, a good guess maybe is hormonal exposure in utero?
edit: at any rate, inquiry into cause is an entirely different matter than ethical question of social treatment of trans people, which if you aren't totally supportive you're basically just a douchebag in my book. live and let live yo, we're all in this world together and who are you to judge?
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I suffered gender dysphoria because my body wasn't quite lined up with my mind. It's a short speculation from there that I'd have developed dysphoria from my body on some level or another. Whether its onset would have been at the same time is pure speculation, and of course we're discussing a purely hypothetical scenario.
And I do need surgery if I want legal recognition on many levels in the united states
Would you need a surgery if everyone around you acted as if you were completely normal no matter what you did and you were legally (and beyond that) recognized on every level?
I can't speak for Alay but think about this hypothetical. If you were man with a vagina, wouldn't you still want a penis *even if* everyone treated you like a perfectly "normal" guy. I imagine that the answer for many men would be a resounding yes.
You're surely implying I'd be aware I'm missing a penis there and it's not okay. If I thought it was completely normal would I bother? I guess not.
Pumping your body full of chemicals and surgically altering your appearance should never be acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's cosmetic surgery, steroid abuse, or gender reassignment. It's straight up self-mutilation.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Unless you want to argue that being a woman or being a man is disability compared to the other case, your comparison is invalid. Schizophrenia makes it impossible for you to live in any society and the fault is not on the side of society. And nobody says treatment is not necessary, transsexuals receive treatment in form of hormonal therapy and possibly surgery. Difference is that undergoing that treatment the issues of the transgendered person are resolved to some degree. Indulging schizophrenic leads to catastrophic consequences. Outcome is what matters. "Indulging" transsexual helps, "indulging" schizophrenic does not.
On December 06 2012 13:34 Sanders wrote: Pumping your body full of chemicals and surgically altering your appearance should never be acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's cosmetic surgery, steroid abuse, or gender reassignment. It's straight up self-mutilation.
You essentially just banned all plastic surgery (even reconstructive) and many types of important medical treatments, including life-saving ones. You should spend time time actually thinking about how you want to phrase your stance here if you want to make a compelling point.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Unless you want to argue that being a woman or being a man is disability compared to the other case, your comparison is invalid. Schizophrenia makes it impossible for you to live in any society and the fault is not on the side of society. And nobody says treatment is not necessary, transsexuals receive treatment in form of hormonal therapy and possibly surgery. Difference is that undergoing that treatment the issues of the transgendered person are resolved to some degree. Indulging schizophrenic leads to catastrophic consequences. Outcome is what matters. "Indulging" transsexual helps, "indulging" schizophrenic does not.
Um, I'm not sure if you fully understood me. He is saying that treatment is not necessary because it's purely a social construction. So when you say "nobody says treatment is not necessary" that's not true - that's what I was arguing against, because most behavioral abnormalities can only be recognized in social context.
On December 06 2012 13:19 Zaqwert wrote: Has everyone here heard of the deaf lifestyle advocates crowd?
Basically there is this group of people that believe being born deaf is not a birth defect, but is simply a different way to experience life and is important to who someone is and thus no treatment should be made.
These people OPPOSE treatments that would help a deaf person gain the sense of hearing. Think think that performing surgery on them or cochlear implants and such are bad. They think defining what "normal" human functioning is and forcing people into that mold is wrong, etc. These people have been known to harass parents who are seeking treatments for their deaf child.
Look, nobody wants to be thought of as defective, but some people clearly are. It sucks that some people are dealt shitty hands at the start of life. Some people are born with bad hearts, others are born blind, other people are born with Down Syndrome, some people are born hermaphrodites, some people have paranoid schizophrenia, others are psychotics, etc.
People with birth defects or mental disorders need help and treatment. They've had to put up with ridicule and scorn for so long and made to feel bad about their defects and that's tragic.
But to simply whitewash it all and start claiming things that are abnormal defects aren't, purely just to make them feel better about themselves is simply an abdication of responsibility and destructive in the long run.
I feel we are going down that route now as a society. We are so concerned with not offending people who have problems we simply pretend like they don't have a problem anymore, but that's not helping anyone.
Again, deafness is a disability. Being a man or a woman is not. Transsexual wants to be a man or a women. Those are normal states of being, thus treatment is helping achieve that normal state as well as possible. Deafness is not a normal state of being, so the analogy falls apart completely. Unless you want to argue that being a man or woman is a disability.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Unless you want to argue that being a woman or being a man is disability compared to the other case, your comparison is invalid. Schizophrenia makes it impossible for you to live in any society and the fault is not on the side of society. And nobody says treatment is not necessary, transsexuals receive treatment in form of hormonal therapy and possibly surgery. Difference is that undergoing that treatment the issues of the transgendered person are resolved to some degree. Indulging schizophrenic leads to catastrophic consequences. Outcome is what matters. "Indulging" transsexual helps, "indulging" schizophrenic does not.
Those are treatments for dysphoria, not for their identity in the first place. What you are saying is that many transexuals become depressed and/or are generally hurt mentally by the fact that their gender does not match the one that they were assigned at birth. The important distinction is that their gender identitity is not the result of confusion or a disorder. Its their body that is the issue to them in essence, and not their mind.
Also the person that you are trying to argue with is simply trying say that disorders and difference are only recognized when compared to society and thus debating about whether trans people would be trans if they never encountered society in their life is irrelevant.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
Not everything is coded, you should look into the nature vs nurture debate and realize that almost all characteristics are affected largely by upbringing and experience and not solely genetics.
I'm pretty sure the structure of your brain and the structure of your genitals is the result of genetics. And the fact that gender is determined from birth, probably means nurture isn't contributing a whole lot.
There are other factors beside genes that can affect your state at birth and quite important ones, but you are correct they are still part of the "nature" not "nurture".
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
The trouble with this logic is that you could replace transsexualism with any other behavior abnormality (homosexuality, autism, schizophrenia, etc) and then argue that treatment isn't necessary, because the problem comes to be known through social interaction.
Anyways, I suspect that one would still be transsexual even in the absence of social interaction. They just wouldn't be able to put a label on their feeling, no more than a homosexual could understand that he was gay. Edit: or the schizophrenic understanding that he was having delusions. How could he, with no one else to compare himself to.
Unless you want to argue that being a woman or being a man is disability compared to the other case, your comparison is invalid. Schizophrenia makes it impossible for you to live in any society and the fault is not on the side of society. And nobody says treatment is not necessary, transsexuals receive treatment in form of hormonal therapy and possibly surgery. Difference is that undergoing that treatment the issues of the transgendered person are resolved to some degree. Indulging schizophrenic leads to catastrophic consequences. Outcome is what matters. "Indulging" transsexual helps, "indulging" schizophrenic does not.
Um, I'm not sure if you fully understood me. He is saying that treatment is not necessary because it's purely a social construction. So when you say "nobody says treatment is not necessary" that's not true - that's what I was arguing against, because most behavioral abnormalities can only be recognized in social context.
On December 06 2012 06:25 KwarK wrote: I have a question for the trans posters here if they don't mind answering as I am genuinely curious. If a transgender individual were raised in total isolation and kept ignorant of the existence of other humans of other shapes then do you think they would still feel wrong about their body? Would the lack of the challenge issued by another seeking to impose them into an incorrect category prevent them from realising there was an issue? Likewise would the lack of awareness that things could be in any way different to the way that they are in any way alter the perception of the body? I guess it comes down to whether or not they would still believe there was something wrong while having no idea that anything other than things as they are existed or if instead they would simply believe that a penis was associated with a strong sense of a female gender or the other way around.
Yes, I believe so. I was raised in a fairly genderless environment (that is, gender stereotypes were fairly lax, and no one tended to really give a crap in my immediate family, friend circle, etc) and I still ended up with severe dysphoria regarding specifically my body. I've socially not really given much of a care as to what people think of me (so long as they meet basic respect standards--not that it matters any longer, as I haven't been misgendered in a few years) and never really had much anguish from societal expectations. The only time I was truly bugged by someone else was when my family decided to more or less pretend I didn't exist for two years.
Though, the true answer to your question is, no one knows. I'd guess that yes, I'd still have 'ended up' trans. The few societal issues I've had wouldn't have existed though.
On December 06 2012 07:27 Zaqwert wrote: Treating someone with a mental problem by physically deforming their body isn't helping them.
There are people who want to have their arms and legs removed, clearly they have mental problems, but they don't care, they want their limbs removed.
I argue it's unethical to indulge their mental issue in such a way. Treat the underlying root mental issue.
It's a lot trickier with gender confusion, as the causes are varied, but hacking off body parts via surgery to indulge someone's delusion is not compassionate or progress. We've gone from calling these people demonic which is ridiculous and stupid to another stupid extreme of refusing to acknowledge or treat them and just pretend like there is no problem.
When someone is convinced they are covered in bugs we shouldn't spray them down with bug spray to make them feel better, we need to treat their issues.
Ah, but the only other solution for most trans individuals aside from gender transition is the same solution for curing the undead of their zombification.
I'd rather live with a "mutilated" body (which is pretty fantastic in contrast to my pre-transition setup, if I may speak subjectively) than rot in a coffin for the time being.
You'd be very naive to believe what you've just said. His question is loaded, and chances are there isn't an answer that would go well with you. Chances are that a person without any type of social interaction/information on other members of society would never come to realize he had any kind of problem. Ask anyone working in behavioral science, they will smile. People are social creatures and develop through interaction.
The implication of this is that the problem comes through social interaction. Therefore, you don't really need surgery.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I suffered gender dysphoria because my body wasn't quite lined up with my mind. It's a short speculation from there that I'd have developed dysphoria from my body on some level or another. Whether its onset would have been at the same time is pure speculation, and of course we're discussing a purely hypothetical scenario.
And I do need surgery if I want legal recognition on many levels in the united states
Would you need a surgery if everyone around you acted as if you were completely normal no matter what you did and you were legally (and beyond that) recognized on every level?
Need? I could probably live without. My dysphoria is mostly gone since what I'd consider completing transition (aka; I pass fine, legal name changed, and I've reintegrated socially and am satisfied with my life, and am no longer suicidal) and my genitals aren't really a huge part of it. However, I still plan on shelling out the money and taking the risks on surgery because I'd like to experience intercourse properly, because as it currently stands I have a fair amount of sexual dysfunction.
So, no, I wouldn't need it, because everyone around does act as if I'm completely normal (most are non-the-wiser about me being trans) and sans marriage issues, I've got enough legal considerations in the fine state of CT for the time being. But I still want genital surgery. Really though, for me, surgery is just the cherry on top--the last bow to tie it all together and completely be done with that nightmare. For others, it is much more severe though.
On December 06 2012 13:34 Sanders wrote: Pumping your body full of chemicals and surgically altering your appearance should never be acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's cosmetic surgery, steroid abuse, or gender reassignment. It's straight up self-mutilation.
Yeah, I'm sure massively improving the quality of life for transgender people is straight up self-mutilation and should be unacceptable *rolls eyes*.
On December 06 2012 12:14 sam!zdat wrote: no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
If you are trying to be funny it's certainly not working. I thought basic biology was mandatory in the US. Have you not learned or heard anything about the difference between X and Y chromosomes?
Sex=/=gender
Even so, if you don't believe in a soul and you think it's likely that we're just our brains and our bodies...then SOMETHING must code for gender.
The sex genes and gender genes would probably also be very related since most of the population doesn't experience the desync of sex and gender.
Not everything is coded, you should look into the nature vs nurture debate and realize that almost all characteristics are affected largely by upbringing and experience and not solely genetics.
I'm pretty sure the structure of your brain and the structure of your genitals is the result of genetics. And the fact that gender is determined from birth, probably means nurture isn't contributing a whole lot.
This is actually a key point in this whole debate. If it's not a birth defect, than it warrants a completely different approach.
You're implying that you don't believe it's a birth defect, yet scientific studies seem to show that it is.
Identifying as the opposite sex for decades despite desperately trying to repress those feelings and going against them and that never working doesn't seem like that identity would be a delusion, a selfish desire; each one of us tried our best not to have to accept the reality of being transsexual, we tried to be in denial about it, but it never worked. There's a reason the medical treatment for it is never forcing the patient to accept their assigned sex. That just leads to suicide in most cases.
And I relate a lot to shinosai's paragraphs about how being forced to live as my assigned sex has always felt like a lie, just uncomfortable acting, and have to agree that if there was a treatment to make our brains match our body, many of us would likely become completely impersonal, identityless actors. It wouldn't fix the problem because without an indentity, due to the regret of losing it, most people would still commit suicide. Trust me that gender identity is that core to one's identity (the fact that we either risk so much or suicide should sort of be a testament to that fact), but you won't be able to realise that if you never had your gender and sex not in alignment.
Would any cis (non-trans) people here really want their identity to get changed against their will if they had no problems with it?
On December 06 2012 13:34 Sanders wrote: Pumping your body full of chemicals and surgically altering your appearance should never be acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's cosmetic surgery, steroid abuse, or gender reassignment. It's straight up self-mutilation.
That's just a subjective opinion. Even if I'm willing to overlook all the fallacies that others have previously pointed out about your statement, just why is it a problem to you what others do to their own body that makes them much happier while not causing any harm to you whatsoever?
And so, aside from the fact that people should have empathy (is intolerance of people of other races/gender identities/orientations/etc. going to really get anyone anywhere?) and that we can still be very valuable members of society in our professions, why should cis people even care about trans people? Maybe because you can never know when you’ll have a trans person in your life.
You can never know that your best friend of 10 years will one day without any prior signs during those 10 years come out to you that she’s really suicidally depressed because she’s a trans woman and wants to transition to female, and instead of congratulating her for being brave enough to come out, thanking her for trusting you and considering you a close enough friend to come out to, and assuring her that you’re still friends and you’ll accept and support her and therefore your friendship will become even stronger than before through this, you’d rather tell her that she’s disgusting and insane and abandon her, making her lose a friend and leaving her even with the anxiety of you possibly outing her to others, pushing her even more towards suicide?
What if your future "son" whom you were always proud of, the one whom you had put all your hope into, came out to you one day as a trans woman? Wouldn’t you rather she was just a gay guy (probably the only case where you'd rather want that, right?)? And would you rather beat her up, throw her out and disown her just because you don’t want to be ashamed in front of others that your kid became some creepy abomination who would just plague the fame of your family, instead of still unconditionally loving her, accepting and supporting her through all this, making the parental bond even stronger? Because of how unlikely the latter scenario is in most families, now you might imagine how stress-inducing it is to even consider coming out to one’s parents as a trans woman.
What about your "daughter" coming out to you that he’s actually a trans man? The adorable "daddy’s girl” is sadly gone, in fact never existed, but now you have a son to be proud of? Would that be more acceptable than the other way around? Isn’t this societal double standard really sad that males expressing femininity and trans women "choosing" [when it’s not even a choice] femaleness are a lot less acceptable? I’m not saying masculine females and trans men shouldn’t be that accepted either, but rather that effeminate males and trans women should be accepted more as well.
Regardless, know that it’s not your fault if your future kid will be LGBT, and that it’s always a possibility to keep in mind. It’s not their fault either, they didn’t choose to get born as such, but they do deserve a happy life like everyone else, and having support from their family is extremely important. So let it sink in that it can very well happen in your own family, and consider telling your future kids when they’re still young that you will always love them unconditionally, regardless of whether they’re gay and/or trans, assuring them that they can comfortably come out about it later on in life if they are.
But if you don't have that empathy not only towards strangers but not even towards possible friends / family members, then I'm sorry for you.
Sorry if this has already been asked, but I am sure that many other straight men have thought it...
So you're a girl with a penis, how do you get involved with straight men? Does having surgery (shiny new vagina, no more penis) change this at all?
I expect that there are two main camps that oppose transsexual treatments: religious people and men who are scared of being tricked. I cannot speak for religious people, but I expect there is not much more to say there anyway. As for men who are scared of being tricked, 5 years ago I would definitely of been in that category. Nowdays, a penis would be a complete turn off (especially if it was bigger than mine!), but I find the situation too amusing to be scared of (or disgusted by, which I expect many young men would think).
On December 06 2012 19:42 hzflank wrote: I expect that there are two main camps that oppose transsexual treatments: religious people and men who are scared of being tricked. I cannot speak for religious people, but I expect there is not much more to say there anyway. As for men who are scared of being tricked, 5 years ago I would definitely of been in that category. Nowdays, a penis would be a complete turn off (especially if it was bigger than mine!), but I find the situation too amusing to be scared of (or disgusted by, which I expect many young men would think).
Against MtF treatment, besides the two you mentioned, in general all people who irrationally hate others for being even slightly different than themselves, people who are disgusted by it, people who hate men and think we're trying to invade women's spaces, people who feel we're a disgrace to maleness and masculinity, people who feel we're a disgrace to femaleness and femininity, homophobes, people who think we're insane, people who think it's sexual deviance, people who think the public existence of it may lead to their kids being influenced to "become" trans too, etc.
(And for a second going to ignore straight / bisexual trans women attempting to get into a straight relationship; I feel really sorry for their situation) What about us trans women who are lesbian and don't want at all to date men? Sadly we're still assumed to be straight due to the totally misinformed stereotype completely confusing sexual orientation with gender identity (when there's nothing in common with them other than the fact that neither are a choice as they seem to be neuroanatomically hardwired, but have different neuron nucleuses in the Hypothalamus that they're linked to, hence all sexual orientation x gender identity combinations being possible and actually existing).
And even more sadly we can still get beaten up by straight men upon them finding out from distance that we're trans if they got seriously offended by the fact that they got attracted to us from distance, to someone who was once physically male, in their eyes trying to "deceive" straight men like themselves. So by merely existing, if someone doesn't pass, they're subjected to getting beaten up at any time. So it's really ridiculous to expect trans people not to be in stealth when it's not about "deception" but about physical safety.
Now back to trans women who want to be in a straight relationship, for a second imagine yourself into their place, imagine the horrors of their situation, the intense fear of risking severe physical violence upon coming out to their male partner, even if right at the start / early into the relationship.
And what if your "girlfriend" / "wife" whom you loved infinitely more than anyone else, especially their personality, and seriously wanted to live down your entire life with, came out to you one day that after many decades, he finally realised that he's not a straight woman but a gay trans man and wants to transition to male, how would you react to that?
On December 06 2012 19:42 hzflank wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, but I am sure that many other straight men have thought it...
So you're a girl with a penis, how do you get involved with straight men? Does having surgery (shiny new vagina, no more penis) change this at all?
I expect that there are two main camps that oppose transsexual treatments: religious people and men who are scared of being tricked. I cannot speak for religious people, but I expect there is not much more to say there anyway. As for men who are scared of being tricked, 5 years ago I would definitely of been in that category. Nowdays, a penis would be a complete turn off (especially if it was bigger than mine!), but I find the situation too amusing to be scared of (or disgusted by, which I expect many young men would think).
Many places for gender change surgery offer genital operations.
On December 06 2012 19:42 hzflank wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, but I am sure that many other straight men have thought it...
So you're a girl with a penis, how do you get involved with straight men? Does having surgery (shiny new vagina, no more penis) change this at all?
I can answer this. Keep in mind, I'm a preoperative trans woman (which means, I was assigned male at birth, but have lived as a female for years now.) My boyfriend and I met through some nerdy activities, and just became close friends. He knew full well I was trans, but still pursued a relationship with me and vice versa. He identifies as straight (like, in the 'no way in hell am I ever hooking up with a guy' way) and yet our love is able to overcome sexual difficulties. At this point, he states it isn't even a big deal to him either way (though he's obviously not fond of my downstairs) as he views me as a female, and thus doesn't have an issue computing attraction to me with his sexuality. I am simply, currently, a female whom he loves who is not capable of vaginal penetration, so we just do other things for the time being.
As for the surgery--yes, in many cases individuals will simply go "stealth" and completely keep their trans status a secret. Most guys haven't a clue, because it (apparently? never tried... lol) feels the same/looks the same. There are ethical questions to going full stealth and not disclosing to a long term partner, but those questions aren't really the focus of this thread.
On December 06 2012 19:42 hzflank wrote: I expect that there are two main camps that oppose transsexual treatments: religious people and men who are scared of being tricked. I cannot speak for religious people, but I expect there is not much more to say there anyway. As for men who are scared of being tricked, 5 years ago I would definitely of been in that category. Nowdays, a penis would be a complete turn off (especially if it was bigger than mine!), but I find the situation too amusing to be scared of (or disgusted by, which I expect many young men would think).
If you mean 'tricked' by getting into bed with a trans woman who is pre-operative or non-operative who hasn't disclosed their genital situation... well that would be a really really dumb idea for the trans woman, as that is liable to get you beat extremely bad, or murdered. However, if you mean falling for a girl who ends up disclosing to you... Well, you take it from there. It's hard to say unemotionally, though sex really isn't everything in a relationship (and for me at least, my partner and I have fulfilling intercourse without my genitals being involved at all.) In my experience, on the whole, most guys are cool with it after a bit of thinking, but initially many get hit with the "omg does liking a girl with a dick make me gay?" thought. But that is just my experience, of course.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/files/2012/02/Genderbread-Person.jpg)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/files/2012/02/Genderbread-Person.jpg
