On March 16 2013 20:58 Deadlifter wrote: My take on gay rights is that they have every right that any other human has.
My take on the marriage issue is that if they can find a church that wants to marry two of the same sex, then that's fine. However I think that it is a clear infringement of freedom of religion to make a law that says every church has to accept and allow gay marriages in their chuch/congregation/community.
That's because there are is something that goes above freedom of religion, at least in the countries that have or want gay marriage: The law.
There are borders to freedom of religion. And for a good reason. Human rights are important. Or would you be ok with a church of human offering too.
If there are functional legal mechanisms to control the rituals and practices of organized religions, I would sooner have the society use them to limit some of the more fundamental flaws of organized religion in general - such as the indoctrination of children, hate speech and consistent rejection of countless (other) human rights in general.
However, the fact that we haven't dealt with so many other glaring issues related to organized religion prior to gay marriage indicates that forceful mechanisms required to solve these issues would neither be rational nor accepted by the general public. Just because the state law is supreme doesn't mean you can write anything you feel like in there and expect it to function. In most countries, it is law that grants the freedom religious organizations have to reject performing a ritual under objectionable circumstances.
I would imagine that more liberal-oriented societies would sooner motivate those dissatisfied with how a religious organization functions to found their own splinter organizations and perform the rituals in accordance to their own beliefs.
On March 16 2013 22:55 xM(Z wrote: question: why trans can't/don't/won't develop a gender expression of their own?
they do. but invention of new concepts to satisfy an onlooker is not a fair burden.
private language argument and so forth. your other post above didn't make much sense
invention of new concepts would satisfy themselves primarily.
i was paraphrasing the post above mine for context. if there wouldn't be an archetypal female expression, how would a MtF trans know she would like to express herself as a female?. by "gender expression of their own' i mean an invention devoid of binary (M/F) context.
On March 16 2013 23:25 xM(Z wrote: that's circular reasoning i think. you can only associate a behavior to your gender, to what you're meant to be, only after you see it in others?.
Only under the faulty concept that gender is exclusively a social construct. Gender norms and expression is more of a social thing, whereas there's an innate sense of gender within an individual.
yea i got that but it seems you're talking about that gender as being a pure psychological construct, unaffected by, let's say, the hormonal changes you undergo when transitioning.
@Iyerbeth, i get what you are saying and it seems to be common sense mostly. what i was trying to suggest is that if you can be something more, why limit yourself to ones and zeros (im including here all the gray shades of the gender binarism too). (i think that sparked from the fact that i read some myths about hermaphrodites in which they were revered, as gods, for having the best/only/true insights into/from both worlds. M&F )
A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom.
On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote: A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom.
that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing.
On March 17 2013 01:17 fugs wrote: A trans person's gender is different than their sex. Them growing up having a vagina does not mean that they naturally fall into gender lanes. Your brain decides who you are not your genitals. Basing arguments about gender stereotypes on trans people is flawed because being trans doesn't depend on outside sources. It's your instinct that tells you your gender not the doctor slapping your ass when you fall out of your mom.
that is not really the problem at least from my perspective. what i'm having problems understanding is why the ego doesn't/can't reconcile the psychological female self with the physical male self for example (MtF case)?. i guess it's one of those "you'd have to be one to know" kind of thing.
I think I can explain. Being Female is not simply having a vagina; females brains are structured in different ways then males, they have different chemical interactions, different sizes of certain regions, different structures etc etc. A trans with a vagina has the need to switch sexes because their brain is wired as a male. It is possible to change a vagina to a dick but you cant change a female brain into a male one.
I think I can explain. Being Female is not simply having a vagina; females brains are structured in different ways then males, they have different chemical interactions, different sizes of certain regions, different structures etc etc. A trans with a vagina has the need to switch sexes because their brain is wired as a male. It is possible to change a vagina to a dick but you cant change a female brain into a male one.
How do you know their brain is wired as a male though? Just because they said so? It's true that men and women have different chemical interactions and different sizes. Using your example of an XX who wants to go FtM, and you did those tests on brain chemicals, hormonal levels, brain size and proportions, all those things would still point to female. The only indicator of a male brain would be the person telling you they believe they are male which is obviously subjective and not scientific. If there is some other evidence or test that can be done, please share.
I think I can explain. Being Female is not simply having a vagina; females brains are structured in different ways then males, they have different chemical interactions, different sizes of certain regions, different structures etc etc. A trans with a vagina has the need to switch sexes because their brain is wired as a male. It is possible to change a vagina to a dick but you cant change a female brain into a male one.
How do you know their brain is wired as a male though? Just because they said so? It's true that men and women have different chemical interactions and different sizes. Using your example of an XX who wants to go FtM, and you did those tests on brain chemicals, hormonal levels, brain size and proportions, all those things would still point to female. The only indicator of a male brain would be the person telling you they believe they are male which is obviously subjective and not scientific. If there is some other evidence or test that can be done, please share.
Yes there is; the hypothalamic bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is sexually dimorphic and matches the size that of the opposite sex in transsexual people:
I think I can explain. Being Female is not simply having a vagina; females brains are structured in different ways then males, they have different chemical interactions, different sizes of certain regions, different structures etc etc. A trans with a vagina has the need to switch sexes because their brain is wired as a male. It is possible to change a vagina to a dick but you cant change a female brain into a male one.
How do you know their brain is wired as a male though? Just because they said so? It's true that men and women have different chemical interactions and different sizes. Using your example of an XX who wants to go FtM, and you did those tests on brain chemicals, hormonal levels, brain size and proportions, all those things would still point to female. The only indicator of a male brain would be the person telling you they believe they are male which is obviously subjective and not scientific. If there is some other evidence or test that can be done, please share.
Yes there is; the hypothalamic bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is sexually dimorphic and matches the size that of the opposite sex in transsexual people:
i'll fully watch that video later but on wiki i found: Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis: The central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) is sexually dimorphic. On average, the BSTc is twice as large in men as in women and contains twice the number of somatostatin neurons. A sample of six male-to-female transsexuals taking estrogen were found to have female-typical number of cells in the BSTc, whereas a female-to-male transsexual taking testosterone was found to have a male-typical number. The authors also examined subjects with hormone-related disorders and found no pattern between those disorders and the BSTc while the single untreated male-to-female transsexual had a female-typical number of cells. They concluded that the BSTc provides evidence for a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder and proposed that such was determined before birth.
Criticisms of the former statement suggest the study used an unrepresentative sample and did not adequately control for hormone replacement therapy, which has been shown to influence hypothalamic size, even though the study tried to do this by including non-transsexual male and female controls which, for a variety of medical reasons, had experienced hormone reversal. The statement about the neurobiological basis from birth has later been brought to question, though not refuted, by a follow up study by the same group which found that the sexual dimorphism of the BSTc is not present before adulthood (approximately 22 years of age) even though transsexuals report being aware of their gender identity since childhood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis
On March 24 2013 21:06 Twinkle Toes wrote: Do we really need specific gay or lesbian rights? There are no men rights or such. Rights should be equal to all.
That's all well and good, but there's many people and societal trends that try to argue the opposite ("X group should have less rights") and thus the need for specific protections.
On March 24 2013 21:06 Twinkle Toes wrote: Do we really need specific gay or lesbian rights? There are no men rights or such. Rights should be equal to all.
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
On March 24 2013 21:06 Twinkle Toes wrote: Do we really need specific gay or lesbian rights? There are no men rights or such. Rights should be equal to all.
and yes, there are, google "mens right activists" who are much maligned, somewhat rightly so.
On March 24 2013 21:06 Twinkle Toes wrote: Do we really need specific gay or lesbian rights? There are no men rights or such. Rights should be equal to all.
Because men are not subject to widespread discrimination, unlike gays and lesbians and women.
On March 25 2013 02:26 xM(Z wrote: but the discrimination is civil not penal, right?. i mean there aren't crimminal laws that prohibit things/stuff to lgtbxxx.
Discrimination often leads to violence though. And yes, anti-discrimination law do exist.
On March 25 2013 02:26 xM(Z wrote: but the discrimination is civil not penal, right?. i mean there aren't crimminal laws that prohibit things/stuff to lgtbxxx.
You mean like marriage, adoption, military service? All things restricted to non-heterosexuals in many countries.
On March 25 2013 02:26 xM(Z wrote: but the discrimination is civil not penal, right?. i mean there aren't crimminal laws that prohibit things/stuff to lgtbxxx.
In some cases, there are. In some countries, sodomy or homosexual relations are punishable (in some cases, by death.)
Trans people have been charged with attempting to falsify records or misrepresent themselves before as well, and again in some cases dressing as the opposite sex has strict penalties.
The United States debates are more about equality than avoiding criminalization, but LGBT rights worldwide still has some major hurdles.
On March 25 2013 02:26 xM(Z wrote: but the discrimination is civil not penal, right?. i mean there aren't crimminal laws that prohibit things/stuff to lgtbxxx.
You mean like marriage, adoption, military service? All things restricted to non-heterosexuals in many countries.
He's asking if it's a criminal or a civil offense, which I would assume depends on the country and the type of "offense".
Yes there is; the hypothalamic bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is sexually dimorphic and matches the size that of the opposite sex in transsexual people:
Interesting subject and speaker. His points are all based on a 1 or 2 studies dating to 1995. I'm not sure how old that video is, but I tracked down those studies and read them. I also found a very thorough refutation here:
The studies are not even close to rigorous or scientific, IMO. The short story is that 1) they only looked at 6 patients, a number far too small to be statistically significant. 2) They looked at the results and then generated a hypothesis to fit the results, which is the opposite of the scientific method. 3) All the patients were on hormone therapy, which has been shown to alter brain size including BSTc (contrary to the statement in the study). Most likely, the size of their BSTc was because of the hormones.
The speaker in the video also makes a few false claims. One is that they controlled for hormones by looking at 'normal' people with abnormal hormone levels because of tumors. They certainly did not. If you read the study, they looked at a single male, and a single female with tumors secreting estrogen and androgens respectively. There is no way to know whether those tumors would secrete anything close to the levels that would be received by folks changing their gender, and it would be an almost impossible fluke if they were. Regardless, there is absolutely no scientist or doctor who would consider 2 individuals to be a 'control group'. The other false claim the video speaker makes is indirectly about the number of homosexual or transgender people. He states that the psychiatry DSM manual used to say non-heterosexual identify was a pathological disorder. This is true, and it changed in 1973 between the DSM III and IV. However he says that upon this change "40 million Americans were suddenly cured of psychiatric disorder". This is partly for humor for his audience, but that number is way off. 40 million Americans in 1973 (total 211 million at that time) would be almost 20%. Tons of surveys from many western countries, including the USA, including recent surveys show this number to be in the range of 1 - 4%.
So I would say those neuro-anatomy studies are interesting, but not even close to hard evidence. Like all the other physical manifestations of someone on therapy for gender re-assignment, the hormone therapy itself adequately explains the change in brain and BSTc size and neuronal composition.
In a society that doesn't actively oppress minority groups, no you wouldn't need specific protections for anybody beyond basic human rights.
But in such societies, the creation of such laws still do not succeed in protecting them. And in the societies where they are safe, laws protecting human rights already cover it. So in either case it's redundant. They also serve to legally institutionalize the segregation of those groups, making them more distinct a separate in people's minds, which is the opposite of what an all-inclusive society would strive for IMO.
Say somebody gets punched because they are gay. There is nothing about gay rights (or similar) laws that would make it any clearer or easier for a judge to convict the person who punched, assuming enough evidence is there. Doesn't matter if they hate gay people or mistook the guy for someone else or anything in between, still guilty.
EPT
) 
