|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
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 08:20 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +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 08:45 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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 08:50 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 08:45 mcc wrote: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?
|
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.
|
Post above me seems to equate "cis person priviledge" with "being treated equally in society"
Edit: it may seem strange but some cis people might just be content with not being treated negatively as a result of how they identify and feel.
I've seen almost no argments that cis people should be treated better, or given priviledge.
|
On December 06 2012 08:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 07:52 ninini wrote:On December 06 2012 05:45 shinosai wrote: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 08:43 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 07:52 ninini wrote: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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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 09:31 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 08:43 NicolBolas wrote:On December 06 2012 07:52 ninini wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 06 2012 04:40 Crawdad wrote: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.
Troll level: 9000
User was warned for this post
|
On December 06 2012 09:54 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 09:31 ninini wrote:On December 06 2012 08:43 NicolBolas wrote:On December 06 2012 07:52 ninini wrote: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
What is it like to be a bat?
|
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.
|
no way there is a gene that codes for gender, from what I know about genetics (small but non-trivial) that seems highly unlikely.
there's simply not enough information in your genome to do much more than set up some basic brain stuff and start the system going.
|
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).
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.
The process (graphic?):
+ Show Spoiler +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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
