@ FO: It certainly does. For example: People who are physically women have a 5cm long, straight, unobstructed urethra. People who are physically men have a 30cm long, s-shaped, urethra that's partially obstructed by the prostate gland What do you think happens when you try to inflate a 30mm catheter balloon in what you think is a woman's bladder, but is in fact a trans woman's urethra? And if she hasn't told you, you might not know that she's trans - in this country at least, pres transition medical records are purged on privacy grounds.
OMG I'm trans...
(152 posts) (21 voices)-
Nzo:
Sometimes the marginalized feel the need to play games with those around them, to make themselves feel better. What better way than to come onto a forum of well-above-average intellects, and tell them how ignorant they are?
By games, I mean those described in TheraminTrees' Transactional Analysis where ydg plays a child role of having a problem, and everyone here chooses to play the parent role in trying to understand, and offer advice or solutions.
Ty seems to have the right idea, and handled it in an assertive, adult fashion.
That's not all though.
While this is my first experience of reading about transsexuals, and I find it enlightening, ydg is doing a great job of fostering the resentment he/she seems to be looking for. While most have been understanding, the constant stream of "you don't understand me" bullshit is very telling.
With emo people that continually say, "You don't understand, my life is just so bad", eventually, you just want to hand 'em something sharp, and tell them to get to work. I suppose Ty should actually get more credit than I originally gave him for his post - it's beautifully succinct.
In conclusion, ydg is here to roleplay a masochistic, marginalized transsexual with a superiority complex.
...
@Francesco - True. I think your point about ydg not gaining any reproductive organs is a lot more important to the overall topic than you might realize. It could have been discussed constructively, but I don't really see that happening with this insecure twit.I am just...speechless. This is the same crap that civil rights activists, feminists, gay rights activists, and atheists have always dealt with. Please tell me, how is it helpful?
You admitted not being informed about transsexuals until now, and yet you're so quick to judgment.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO:
So, we will try to empathize with you, but it's rather rude of you to expect us to understand it and to take the effort to study it.
None here has a duty of understanding trans-sexual issues.Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Please carefully consider what you said there. It is very prejudiced.
I am a Linux fundamentalist, I think Apples and Windows are EVIL and extremely damaging to our society and I can explain you at length why.
But even if I wish it was otherwise, I do not expect people to be interested about it and I don't scold them for being ignorant about it.That has nothing to do with human rights and respecting other people as human beings, treating them the way that they want to be treated (i.e., the Golden Rule). Attitudes like yours are, I'm sorry to say, precisely what perpetuates the oppression of groups.
Posted 1 year ago # -
swmr1
Are your kidding me? I have felt like I'm supposed to neatly fit into a gender stereotype my whole life. I have fought the doormat-biblical view of femininity as well as the schmaltzy diva/princess crap my whole life. I never wanted to be a swaggering, macho, ball-scratching lunk either. I'd rather just be a person with various traits, interests and abilities without having to fit a label.
I totally understand not wanting to be shoved into a gender category. What I don't understand is arguing that transsexuals feel like they should have different body parts without feeling like they are wrongly being pushed into a societally constructed gender category. My only point is that not all of us buy into society's constructs!
Being transsexual has nothing to do with buying into, or promoting stereotypes. Neither does being cisgender. Maybe I didn't express that clearly enough.
What you're doing is using your own experience of gender to make judgments on people who have very different experiences of gender, insisting that they are wrong and that the treatments that they claim to need are actually not helpful to them. At best, this is ignorance. At worst, it's transphobia. This sort of attitude has always prevented trans people from getting the treatments, rights, and respect that they need.
The question of whether gender is innate or socially constructed is a matter of fact, not opinion. So there is a right or wrong answer, which can be found through scientific research. I think that the vast majority of LGBT people agree that gender is MOSTLY socially constructed, but not entirely. Science has PROVEN that gender has a fundamental innate component.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Theory_of_I
You are unhappy as a male -- are your reasons (feelings) specific, non-specific, physical, psychological, social, sexual, conceptual, pragmatic, based on a sense of ostracism, envy, gender (in)competence? Do you think that whatever makes you unhappy or incomplete as a male will be satisfactorily resolved if you make the change?
I have given this endless thought over the last nine months, questioning myself, doubting, wondering if my desire for transition is for the right or wrong reasons. I have asked those same questions of myself over and over again. My conclusion is that there is no other choice.
There are those who are "genuinely" transsexual and those who claim to be transsexual but actually just feel incompetent about living up to society's expectations of their gender. A "genuine" transsexual does not merely feel unhappy in the gender assigned at her/his birth; she/he also feels like a member of the other gender.
Simply put, how do you know? Testimonials of others or studies that prove a high correlation of success in achieving desired results?
Many years ago, mental health professionals didn't understand what transsexualism was and assumed/argued that it was a manifestation of other mental disorders. It was a delusion that could be cured as such. Every possible treatment was attempted, but (like reparative therapy for homosexuals) none was effective. Outcomes were disastrous. Nobody took the idea of gender transition seriously because all of the psychologists and psychiatrists believed that it would only serve to feed the delusion and would do more harm than good. So many were surprised when studies showed that post-transition transsexuals had very high rates of satisfaction. Gender transition has been consistently shown to be the only therapy that is effective at relieving gender dysphoria. In fact, the DSM-IV specifically recommends transition as the only treatment for gender dysphoria (AKA "gender identity disorder").
CMIIW, but I assume that unlike tattoos, this procedure is permanent. What if it turns out to be wrong?
That is precisely why the WPATH standards of care exist and require therapist supervision and approval of transition-enabling procedures. In the trans community, therapists and physicians are regarded as "gatekeepers." The necessity of their role is a topic of endless debate among trans people.
Posted 1 year ago # -
swmr1
Memberinsisting that they are wrong and that the treatments that they claim to need are actually not helpful to them.
I don't remember arguing this. I don't give a flying flip what people want to do with their own bodies. More power to them. I'm just asking someone to define what, exactly, gender identity is without social construct. That's what I don't understand. How does a person born with a vagina feel like they should have a penis without the pressures of society telling them what having a vagina or a penis means about them?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sorry, ydgmdlu, but I strongly suspect that NZO just voiced the impression that you've given a lot of people on the forum so far. When speaking to Ursa earlier I made a similar observation: There's a certain shoulder in this thread upon which is balanced one hell of a big chip.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Kodie
MemberCan I try to understand? The closest I, a cisgender woman, can feel what it must feel like to be uncomfortable in one's body is to go out in the world to a situation that might last for hours wearing clothes that don't suit my personality. It might be because I have to, it might be that I was trying something out that turned out to be a big mistake. (This is not a reversal of my earlier comment about clothes). I spend the whole day wishing I'd worn something else and constantly distracted and feeling very unconfident, and when I get home, I change into my comfies right away. If it were my body and not my clothes, that I could not simply change out of, it would be a very frustrating life. I don't think I need a penis to climb a tree or build a house, or some "manly" activity (?), it's not a matter of being born a woman and feeling imprisoned with some fact that I have to wear skirts and pinchy shoes. It's not insurmountable for a person of one sex to "do" or "wear" the activities or appearances of the other and settle in their comfort zone. I have different issues my therapist tried to nail down as "not comfortable in my own skin," which in my case is just psychobabble. It doesn't seem to fit me, but I can certainly project situations where I feel those who opt for hormonal and surgical changes to their gender must feel a drastic version of discomfort in their own skin. I think everyone has something to the effect they can understand a little bit, just not about their gender.
If you are overweight, do you accept yourself? Some people do. Do you adopt some drastic weight loss methods obsessively? Some people do. Do you wallow in self-pity and ice cream? Some people do. Do you change your lifestyle and maintain health and nutrition with gradual weight loss? Some people do. If you are born in the wrong gender, it can result in unhealthy or healthy avenues of correction. If it is a source of pain for you, I can imagine that there are other things that you could do that would be bad, like trying to drink it away or self-mutilation, whereas counseling might lead you to accept your body as it is (or be able to), or justify hormonal and surgical transition. It's always a good idea to make sure nobody wants to cut their dick off on a whim, and changing to another sex permanently isn't like me thinking I was born to be a clown. I could try to be a clown and if I hated it, I could go to the store and buy an accountant costume.
That said, OP, and I hope I understand to the best of my abilities, but anyone can be a total jerk. Male, female, rich, poor, gay, straight, trans, cis, parents, childfree, etc. - if you're rubbing people the wrong way here, it might have nothing to do with transphobia. Because of transphobia, you might be more (and I know it puts you in the position of carrying an extra burden) educational about it so people who don't already understand can be free to overcome their misconceptions. Just a thought.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO
Member@ydgmdlu: I can be a jerk with you and still respect your human rights.
You are entitled to your human rights, you are not entitled in people being interested in what is important to you.If you think that my Linux issue has nothing to do with human rights, then it just shows your utter ignorance and disregard for the defence of free speech and the development of global education.
I order you to spend then next several hours obviating at your dismal ignorance of the subject, it's the attitude of idle people like you that's killing our future ability to communicate and create freely.
Until then, you will be a horrible human being.Posted 1 year ago # -
Kodie makes an important point. To illustrate with an anecdote, I once got accused of being racist because I called an Asian man an arsehole. But the thing is, the guy was an arsehole. A gaping, out-of-proportion, gas-leaking arsehole of the absolute widest caliber imaginable. The fact that he was Asian didn't negate that fact. In fact, I'd argue that it would have been racist of me to temper my response to his arseholosity just because he was also Asian. Instead he got the same response a similarly gaping Caucasian arsehole would have elicited from me. Hostility without fear or favor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
swmr1:
How does a person born with a vagina feel like they should have a penis without the pressures of society telling them what having a vagina or a penis means about them?
It's just an innate feeling. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but it is what the science shows. The case of David Reimer proves it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Custador and kodie:
There's a certain shoulder in this thread upon which is balanced one hell of a big chip.
Because of transphobia, you might be more (and I know it puts you in the position of carrying an extra burden) educational about it so people who don't already understand can be free to overcome their misconceptions.
Can you blame me if so many people here are arguing from willful ignorance? I'm sorry if that makes me sound like a jerk, because I certainly don't mean to be. I'm not taking anything here personally, except maybe a little bit from the ad hominem attacks of Nzo and others.
Remember when we used to talk about atheism here? I'm sure that we all know the debates over the most appropriate way to engage with theists. There are confrontationalists and the accomodationists. I think that most people feel that the best way is somewhere in between. But sometimes there really is no better way than to be confrontational.
Some of the posters in this thread are being willingfully ignorant, perhaps somewhat judgmental, and it's a shame. They need to be called on it. There's no other way around it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Custador:
Second of all, the feeling that I'm getting from your posts is that you think any man who could not be attracted to a post-transition m2f trans is transphobic.
It's not as simple as that.
I don't accept that's true. In my (admittedly limited) experience, few m2f trans women are entirely without masculine physical features. Even in the absence of such features, there are unconscious cues like pheromone responses which are still present. It is not transphobic to respond to these cues by simply not being attracted to the person - And some people clearly do respond to these cues more than others.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with whomever someone is unconsciously attracted to or not. I don't think that what unconsciously attracts a person necessarily has any moral or ideological value.
However, to claim gender miscues as exclusively transsexual, as you seem to suggest, is ignorant at best. The truth is that virtually everyone is a mixture of "masculine" and "feminine" traits, both behavioral and physical. If you're not attracted to someone because of said cues, then it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if those cues come from a transgender or a cisgender person. To insist that ALL transsexuals exhibit cues that make them readily distinguishable from cisgender people is, well, transphobic. It's like saying that all gay people exhibit cues that make them readily distinguishable from straight people. Yes, some exhibit more cues than others, and many are easily spotted; no one is denying that. But please, don't make an essentialist argument.
The problem that I have is not with unconscious attractions (or lack thereof) of the sort that you mean. My problem is with people who are not attracted to transsexuals once informed of their trans status, when they otherwise would've been attracted to the same people. In other words, if you say that you were really into someone until she told you that she's trans, then you're transphobic.
The sad, unfair fact is: Even post-transition, the body a person occupies is still the gender it started. It might look like a different gender on the outside, but it still contains the same chromosomes, the same glands and (mostly) the same organs as before.
This is a sore point that keeps popping up here, and I will address it soon enough.
On to my trans lesbian friend: You're being massively, massively disingenuous if you think that the average trans person doesn't acknowledge the fact that they were born in the wrong body, the fact that they are trans is an important part of their make-up.
You misinterpreted me. I didn't mean to suggest that many or most trans people prefer to insist to themselves that they are not trans (though some do). Instead, their attitude has to do with how other people treat them knowing that they're trans. In other words, a trans woman might say, "I don't want you to think that being born male has any bearing on how 'woman' I am now. Sure, transition was an important part of my life, but neither it, nor my past life as a male, defines me now. I am a woman, just like the other women that you know. I am not a freak."
But the problem is that so many people just can't see past the "trans" part.
You're being even more disingenuous if you think that my friend's partner shouldn't at least have the right to decide for herself if it's important to her or not. Leaving aside the issue of whether she's transphobic or not: she has the right to make that decision for herself. Even if she is transphobic.
I never said that she didn't have the right to be transphobic and act accordingly. That would be silly. Her decision to leave her partner or not has no moral value, in itself. But what matters is WHY she may decide to leave (or stay). And being transphobic and acknowledging it is one thing, but being transphobic while denying it is another thing entirely.
Now, you can pretend I'm transphobic for saying that if it makes you feel better, but the thing is: I'm not.
None of my behavior here has been about making myself feel better.
I personally know trans women who I'm very attracted to. It doesn't matter to me what body they were born in. If I was a single man, I would certainly be romantically interested in them.
That's good, but you're not the problem.
And if I was going into a serious, committed relationship with a trans woman, I maintain that I would have every right to know that my putative partner was trans.
I don't disagree with you. In fact, I 100% agree, in the sense that I think that partners theoretically have a right to know anything and everything about each other. However, the other side is that certain things may not need to be known or disclosed, if they would otherwise have no serious effect on the relationship. I'm not defending it, just playing devil's advocate.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ydgmdlu, in my opinion, is leaning very, very heavily towards the educational side of this conversation. Not perfectly, mind you, but a hell of a lot more than some of the people who pursue discussions like this in other parts of the internet.
Now, no one likes being called homophobic, transphobic, privileged, or (worst of all) ignorant. And ydgmdlu is very comfortable assigning those terms to behaviors and people. And that can be considered "not nice." But I don't think we should be tossing out much criticism about the tenor of this conversation--with the exception, perhaps, of making the early thread very much about one person's responses to much earlier questions. That probably could have been done differently/better. Really, though, this is an *extremely* civil discussion so far, especially given the topic, and ydgmdlu has been far more educative than I have the patience to be even at the best of times.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Theory_of_I
MemberYou really didn't address my point about how you know you are a woman. Is your self-image a result of your interactions with other people, your observations in a mirror, comparisons of your thinking with things you read or see in the media, consultations with those you think are more knowledgeable and therefor know what is best for you, the need to make a change because anything would be better than what you believe about yourself now? All the anecdotal quippage aside, unless I had been born a woman, I could and will never know WHAT IT IS to be a woman. How do you know with any assurance that you are already aware?
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO:
You are entitled to your human rights, you are not entitled in people being interested in what is important to you.
I just started a thread here, and other people posted in it, and I responded accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't insist or expect that everyone else be interested in trans issues, or gay issues, or feminist issues, or race issues, or class issues, or whatever. I am not reacting to people's lack of interest in the subject. I am reacting to their dismissive attitudes and demonstrated ignorance, both willful and not.
Even though I might be too aggressive about it, at the end of the day, I'm just trying to engage in consciousness-raising. I don't have any other agenda. If you (I'm not referring to you, FO) want to be bigoted, then you have every right to be. Just please don't pretend insist you're not bigoted and try to convince others to agree with you.
Your (or anyone else's) lack of interest in trans issues doesn't matter to me, unless you're in a situation where you're confronted with how to treat trans people.
If you think that my Linux issue has nothing to do with human rights, then it just shows your utter ignorance and disregard for the defence of free speech and the development of global education.
I order you to spend then next several hours obviating at your dismal ignorance of the subject, it's the attitude of idle people like you that's killing our future ability to communicate and create freely.
Until then, you will be a horrible human being.I happen to be a tech enthusiast and am very familiar with Linux and the open source software movement. So your point doesn't work on me. I'm sorry to have to say that the reality is that open source software, while important in so many ways, has almost nothing to do with governments enacting policies that promote or hinder free speech and the development of global education.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO
Member@ydgmdlu: then you may want to find a better way to convey your message.
Calling bigoted and wilfully ignorant people who are trying to follow you doesn't seem a good strategy.Given the general population of this forum, I should have expected you being at least nerdy-ish, bad call.
But the merit of my Linux-claim has nothing to do with my point.Posted 1 year ago # -
Theory_of_I
You really didn't address my point about how you know you are a woman. Is your self-image a result of your interactions with other people, your observations in a mirror, comparisons of your thinking with things you read or see in the media, consultations with those you think are more knowledgeable and therefor know what is best for you, the need to make a change because anything would be better than what you believe about yourself now?
I'm afraid that I may never provide you with a satisfactory answer. Because there isn't one. The question, "How do you/I know if you/I am transgender?" may be the most persistent question in transgender community. The answer is always some variation of, "You just know. Nobody can tell you. It isn't the same for everyone."
In just the transsexual portion of the larger transgender community, experiences range both widely and wildly. Some people have known since they grew out of diapers. Some people discover it very late in life, like in their 50s and 60s. The feelings and motivations are all different. The only thing that all have in common is the belief that their true gender is different from how they present themselves, and that gender transition may be the only way to bring them psychological harmony.
I could spend hours talking to someone face to face about all of the reasons why I feel that I am woman rather than a man. So I'm not going to go into detail about that here. I don't even know how to summarize; in written form, my "manifesto" might approach book-length. But here's one way to put it (and I apologize if it still isn't helpful): I have four main choices for how to live the rest of my life: I could live as a woman; I could be androgynous; I could be an effeminate man; or I could be more manly. Of those, only the first option gives me a sense of peace. I'll also mention that I'm bisexual, and I'm more attracted to men sexually but more attracted to women romantically. I am a "bottom," i.e., I would prefer to penetrated and can't function in the penetrating role. The thrusting behavior (which is a male instinct) feels wrong to me. When I imagine myself having sex, leaving all gender roles and stereotypes and affectations aside, I just do not want to have sex with a man as a man. Nor do I want to have sex with a woman as a man. In fact, I would characterize my sexuality as very lesbian-like. I have never seen myself as a man when I looked in the mirror, and I never knew why. But when now when I look in the mirror and see myself as a woman, it just somehow makes sense.
The mantra of just about every member of the trans community is that only you can decide what's best for you. If you spend a few moments in a trans forum, you'll see that there tends to be little pressure about transition; attitudes tend to be very open-minded, supportive, and understanding. Gender therapists are trained not to push patients one way or another.
Ultimately, it's just a feeling that comes from an immutable part of the brain, as I keep saying. It would seem to be impossible to fully explain to a cisgender person, just as the feeling of being pregant cannot be fully explained to someone who can never be pregant.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Kodie
MemberCan you blame me if so many people here are arguing from willful ignorance?
I don't know that anyone is being willfully ignorant. There are a lot of personal conceptions of what sexuality and gender mean to the individual, and it might hurt you to hear what people really think. I see people saying things they think, which might be they are saying something wrong, but they haven't spent years thinking about it or been exposed to anyone like you. I used to conflate a lot of the issues together for myself. Because I wasn't keen on acting like a girl or a woman (like my classmates or female family members), I wondered if I was gay so much. I wondered if I could possibly be so averse to the idea of being gay, that I could hide it from myself. I don't feel gay, I feel heterosexual, I'm attracted to men, and to my personal disadvantage, I'm attracted to more stereotypically masculine men, who are in turn, usually have higher expectations of my femininity than I can offer. To put it in perspective, there are things about a man that could turn me off if I found out later on in the relationship, and would I be a -phobe for being turned off? It's certainly worked enough in the reverse. Being as personally accepting to a man who doesn't return the courtesy and expects me to change into something I'm not, who thinks I'm "broken" because I'm not conforming to a standard of womanliness to them.
Later on, realizing I'm a heterosexual, I suddenly wondered if the troubles I have socially might be caused be an underlying seed planting that I'm actually a dude. I wondered if I might be so averse to the idea of trans-sexuality that I could hide it so well from myself. I'm right out in the open very comfortable not conforming to the appearances and many of the behaviors of a woman. Though not butch, sometimes I wear men's clothes as my tall mother taught tall me, sometimes they just fit better if it's like a sweatshirt or something and no one can tell. Reading about Nzo's facial hair question in his other thread, I remembered once as a teenager, I journaled about wishing I could grow sideburns like some musician that I used to like. But I don't cut my hair short and convenient to care for, I like my hair, and I don't really want people to mistake me for a guy, ever, not unless I'm wearing a hardhat and I turn around and take it off and my hair falls down in slow motion... I don't really dress like a man and I don't feel like I am, inside, a man. But these things took a long time to consciously address within myself, what am I putting out there for people to see and judge me by, how do I feel when I am at my best and most confident. I don't naturally expect instant acceptance by anyone, any group of people, especially in intimate situations, when I am being myself. I'm in counseling to help me manage my anxiety in social situations and perhaps discover the root of it. I do think I became this way because I did fail to be socialized. I didn't consciously steer myself or consciously reject notions about gender stereotypes, and over time, I sort of re-adopted some stereotypes about femininity for their appeal to me as masculinity appeals to me. I don't think of myself as androgynous. I can certainly understand that everyone has their own experiences and the majority will feel they always understood what they were and accepted it because they didn't have the bother of having to question it. I do think a lot of the questioning I did was rooted in seeing myself from the outside, as in, society's expectations of me, society's limited understanding is all the same understanding I had to go by. It's not to pretend I'm something I'm not, so I didn't really deny myself or cover it up so other people couldn't see.
Anyway, yeah. I'm sure you're up to here with being insulted and misunderstood, but I don't feel like most of us are trying to minimize your situation. It might sound transphobic, but I feel like if someone says how they feel, it's up for discussion whether those feelings are rational or not, or else they would gain nothing unless they thought those things out loud and pay attention to the responses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
julie42
Member@ydgmdlu: Please consider the way you are coming off to other people. Transphobic is a pretty strong word; it makes people feel defensive and less likely to try and understand your point of view.
If I was arguing with someone about gay rights and they disagreed with me (but not in an offensive way) I wouldn't call them homophobic. It's easy to call people names. But that person may disagree with me because they were raised to believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman. They may be wrong, their views may be misguided, but sometimes a person simply hasn't given enough thought to an issue yet. It's good that you are also explaining things and trying to show us your point of view. That's the best way to argue with us. Now if you could also stop calling us transphobic just because we might have different opinions, that would be great.Just so you know, I do have reasons for my opinion. In one of my classes, we had three transgender people come in and talk to us about their experiences. One of the students asked them what it is that makes them male or female. They all agreed that what mattered to them the most about being [their new gender] was being socialized as [their new gender]. They identified as a different gender than they were born and the main thing they wanted was for people to treat them like their new gender. Having a different body was, like you said, a way of aligning what gender their body was with what gender their mind was.
So if all gender meant to them was being socialized as that gender, then I don't think it's that unreasonable to conclude that if men and women weren't socialized so radically differently, then they wouldn't need to change their bodies.You obviously have a different perspective than I do. I'm really, genuinely trying to understand (sorry if I don't come off that way, but I want to get my point across while trying to understand yours at the same time). I get that I've never felt like I'm the wrong gender and I never will. But it's like you're offended at the idea most of us don't feel that way, yet we still have opinions on it.
I thought Kodie's explanation was pretty good. I really do try to see both sides of it. But don't think that us not having the same perspective as you automatically makes us wrong if we disagree.Posted 1 year ago # -
I must say that I'm very disappointed in the discussion so far. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm getting on my high horse, but I expected so much better from a group of science-loving, self-described rationalists. Those who are debating me keep resorting to ad hominem attacks and, more consistently, refuse to engage the substance of my arguments with well-informed rebuttals. I have provided links to enough information (saving you the trouble of Googling), including the results of peer-reviewed studies, to allow anyone to have an educated position, yet it's all been ignored. THIS IS INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING.
Remember last year when we were all debating NotAshamedOfChrist? We provided rational arguments and pointed him to the scientific support for them. But, as it were, it went in one ear and out the other. He just kept coming back with the same arguments. If that's not willful ignorance, then what is? Unfortunately, that is exactly what I'm seeing here from several posters like Francesco, Nzo, and swmr1. I don't toss out labels and accusations like "transphobia," "bigotry," and "willful ignorance" because I have some axe to grind. When I used those words, I made a painstaking effort to clarify why I was using them. I don't recall labeling anyone, specifically, a bigot (except maybe for Ty). I pointed out statements and explained why they were insensitive, ignorant, or transphobic. That means nothing? If you feel upset or offended, then that's your problem, not mine. But I ask you to compare yourself to all those people who were against Rebecca Watson last summer. Your attitude and behavior are so similar.
Since everyone continues to ignore my links, I will provide them again...
Evidence that transsexualism is neurologically-based: http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/reference-works-on-transsexual-and.html
Wikipedia's overview of the causes of transsexualism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
Article about CAIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
Müllerian agenesis (child lacks internal reproductive organs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCllerian_agenesis
A remarkable case of 46,XX and 46,XY chimerism: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/56.full.pdf
David Reimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_ReimerApparently, some here can't be bothered to look over a few articles and would rather continue arguing out of ignorance or misinformation. So I'll summarize...
Evidence that transsexualism is neurologically based: female-sized bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) found in brains of MTF transsexuals; MTFs have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus; MTFs and FTMs have hypothalamic uncinate nuclei the same volume and number of neurons as those of their post-transition gender; increased cortical thickness in MTFs compared to natal men; and more.
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) is a condition in which the body cannot process androgens (i.e., testosterone). A fetus starts with female anatomy by default. Chromosomes will determine gonad development, but all other sexually-dimorphic characteristics are caused by hormones. Thus, a child with CAIS and 46,XY karyotype will develop a fully female body that is not only externally indistinguishable from an XX woman (complete with vagina), but is also even more feminine than the average XX woman (since XX women's bodies are subject to a little bit of testosterone), i.e., with more pronounced hourglass figures and large breasts. Children with CAIS are raised as girls, and often neither they nor their parents suspect that there's anything different about them until they are well past the typical age of first menstruation. Almost all CAIS women have been found to exhibit a heterosexual female gender identity.
Müllerian agenesis is when girl is born and found with either a partial or complete lack of a female reproductive system (i.e., uterus and fallopian tubes). In some cases, girls may be born without even a vagina. The causes of the condition are unknown; therefore, it is not considered an intersex condition.
A chimera is an organism with two different cell lines in one body. A human chimera may have one cell line with a 46,XY karyotype and another with a 46,XX karyotype. This is colloqually known as "true hermaphroditism." The outcomes vary from developing a normal female body to developing a gender-ambiguous body. In the case that I linked above, a woman that was found to be such a chimera developed a normal female reproductive system and actually got pregnant.
David Reimer was one of a pair of identical twins who, at the age of six months, underwent circumcision over concerns of phimosis. Unfortunately for David, his circumcision was botched, and his penis was damaged beyond all repair. At the time, the scientific community believed that gender was entirely socially-constructed, that children are born with gender-neutral identies, and that they may be socialized into becoming properly-functioning members of whatever gender that their parents choose to assign them. The leading proponent and authority for the "social construction" theory was Dr. John Money.
Reimer's parents were persuaded to reassign David to be a girl. His testicles were removed, his parents treated him as a girly-girl, and he had regular appointments with Money, who gave him psychotherapy to encourage his female gender identity and monitored and documented the progress of the sex reassignment. David received hormone replacement therapy upon reaching puberty. Money later published his results, claiming that it had been a complete success; his work survived peer review and was accepted by the scientific community. But years later, another researcher investigated the case and discovered that Money was a fraud. In fact, David had always insisted on being a boy and hated being raised as a girl. He was not told of what had been done to him until he was mature. After learning the truth, he took himself off estrogen, got a double mastecomy, and eventually even underwent phalloplasty. He got married, but a short time later, he committed suicide.
I'm going to keep insisting that people examine the research until they stop arguing from ignorance and start dealing with the facts. It may seem annoying, but it's only fair. For now, I'll leave you by restating this question: What, exactly, is a "real woman"?
Posted 1 year ago # -
TrickQuestion, kodie, and julie42:
So everyone that doesn't immediately accept is transphobic and/or ignorant. That's what I'm getting from what you're saying.
Anyway, yeah. I'm sure you're up to here with being insulted and misunderstood, but I don't feel like most of us are trying to minimize your situation. It might sound transphobic, but I feel like if someone says how they feel, it's up for discussion whether those feelings are rational or not, or else they would gain nothing unless they thought those things out loud and pay attention to the responses.
Now if you could also stop calling us transphobic just because we might have different opinions, that would be great.
I'm sorry y'all, but that's what passes for reasoned critique and discourse? I'm sorry that you got a mistaken impression, but I never suggested, at any time, that those who merely disagree with me are transphobic. I explained many times what precisely I thought was transphobic and why I thought that it was transphobic. No one really refuted me; instead people just started calling me a jerk with a huge chip on my shoulder. I'm not so sure that I'm the one who's name-calling here.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Jabster
"I must say that I'm very disappointed in the discussion so far."
Well so am I ... why do you think that is?
...
"I'm sorry that you got a mistaken impression, ..."Can't imagine why that was can you?
Is taking cheap shots all that you're going to contribute?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well yes, but NZO also took pains to point out exactly why he thought that. He didn't try to counter any of your points or argue against you, and that's pretty much what an ad hominem is: An attempt to counter an argument by pointing out a perceived or imagined negative attribute of the arguer. But like I said, NZO didn't address your argument at all - He just commented on how you're coming across.
Now, I personally have no issue at all with your argument. I agree that gender is about a lot more than just socialisation, and in fact I think that (as your links demonstrate) it's innate. But I still think that you're presenting yourself as overly aggressive and have ultimately only yourself to blame if you feel the tone of the discussion has ratcheted up as it's gone on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TrickQuestion
Member@ydgmdlu
I would like to reiterate my first question to you.
What exactly are you trying to do here?You come in, guns blazing, call us names and treat us condescendingly, all the while apparently asking for understanding and acceptance. You make assumptions and jump down people's throats when they question what you say. Quite honestly, right now, I don't have a very high opinion of you as a person.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.