Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

wat?

I think is pretty self explaining, I don't see the need for putting two more dimensions with axis I can't honestly imagine but be my guest.

Look at the "biological sex" axis.
It takes into account hormones, chromosomes, and objectively measurable sexual organs, while omitting secondary characteristics, which while a result of some of the previous, are important when it comes to sexual attraction attraction and actually changes measurably in transgendered people who undergo a transition.

By phrasing the biological sex as now, you are playing into the hands of people who go "transgendered women aren't biological females", which isn't really the case when transgendered women share at least half of the biological sex traits with women born that way:

• Hormone levels
• Secondary sexual characteristics.

The two are intrinsically linked, and could simply go under the second name.
The chromosomal trait is pretty much irrelevant in the identity making of a person, so the second trait of importance here would be the primary sexual characterstics.

Thus, primary sexual characteristics displayed in a triangle:
Male-Female-Neuter (meaning a lack of secondary sexual characteristics)

And the secondary sexual characteristics displayed along those same lines:
Male-Female-Neuter (meaning a lack of secondary sexual characteristics)

Why do it this very convoluted way?
Because people are convoluted, and you give transgendered women respect by correctly identifying them as biologically female in the area where it truly matters (secondary sexual characteristics).

I might go ahead and post a revised version of that gingerbread person.

 

[HiResDes]

It's supposed to a simple, concise summary of something complex. Not a complex representation of something complex. That would defeat its purpose.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

This is a privately-owned forum, and you don't have any rights to express your beliefs here.



Why prove you otherwise when it's faster to ban you?

are you going to do anything in this thread other than snidely try to provoke people? Like, maybe articulating a rationale thought.

 

[Baller. PhD]

This is a privately-owned forum, and you don't have any rights to express your beliefs here.

Why prove you otherwise when it's faster to ban you?

1. I didn't say anything about the law. I'm speaking in terms of human beings being respectful of one another.

2. Isn't it the goal of the trans community to be accepted and included in every facet of society without discrimination? Banning everyone who raises their voice in opposition won't accomplish that. If anything it only cements an "us vs. them" mentality and makes things worse for everyone.

 

[Freezie KO]

are you going to do anything in this thread other than snidely try to provoke people? Like, maybe articulating a rationale thought.

Is this not a privately-owned forum? I thought that was a salient point in the matter. People need to understand that there is no right to express a viewpoint here, and if they should express the wrong one, they can be banned.

I'm trying to help.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's supposed to a simple way concise summary of something complex. Not a complex representation of something complex. That would defeat its purpose.

Well, it unfortunately does contribute to negative views regarding transgendered women.
You can simplify things, but some things shouldn't be simplified to the point where you lose valuable information.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

If you want to use "tranny" and don't find it personally offensive, go somewhere else to use it (hopefully where there aren't any trans people to hear you). Is it so difficult to learn that a (fairly uncommon) word is hurtful and adjust your vocabulary accordingly?

I'm not arguing the "kosherness" of the word. I'm arguing that today for many people it's not felt as pejorative (even if it is). As a result ignorance can easily pass for bigotry.

I think you're overreacting there with heavy handed-ness, that's the danger.

 

[HiResDes]

I think the rule is that if you offend others then you should be banned, but I do think there is a correct way to present a differing opinion without being offensive.

And I say it's it contributes to negative views regarding transgendered women.
You can simplify things, but some things shouldn't be simplified to the point where you lose valuable information.

Touche

 

[Devolution]

I'm not arguing the "kosherness" of the word. I'm arguing that today for many people it's not felt as pejorative (even if it is). As a result ignorance can easily pass for bigotry.

I think you're overreacting there with heavy handed-ness, that's the danger.

I don't think anyone is getting permed over it, if so then disregard that last sentence. If you think a list of pejoratives should be in the TOS, I'd take that up with moderation.

 

[Freezie KO]

I think the rule is that if you offend others then you should be banned, but I do think there is a correct way to present a differing opinion without being offensive.

Your sentence makes no sense. The former ("if you offend others") depends on the reaction of the reader. And the latter ("present a differing opinion") depends on the action of the writer. You cannot possibly control for the former, even if you feel the latter has been accomplished.

 

[Demy]

Good for her.

Now extremely hyped for Cloud Atlas.

 

[Devolution]

I think the rule is that if you offend others then you should be banned, but I do think there is a correct way to present a differing opinion without being offensive.

There are differing opinions that will never truly be allowed in safe spaces. One of which being the denial of the existence of trans identities. Another being bigoted views towards homosexuality.

 

[HiResDes]

Bans themselves are based on completely subjective means, I realize that. However, I do believe there is a very loose mantra that most bans fall under.

Edit: I agree, but what if this bigotry falls under a person's religion. I'm playing devil's advocate. For example, wouldn't subjecting a devout evangelical to concede to the more liberal viewpoints of others be a prejudice in of itself.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I don't think anyone is getting permed over it, if so then disregard that last sentence. If you think a list of pejoratives should be in the TOS, I'd take that up with moderation.

Juniors, probably.

On the other thing, there's on the FAQ forum a list of bannable offenses, but it's incredibly out of date with current forum events. Mods know it's there and if they aren't doing anything about it, it's because they don't want.

 

[thatbox]

As other posters have said if she wasn't a trans person, then it would be less frowned upon to judge her by her looks. What kind of bullshit is that? Also why make the jump that he's talking about all trans-gendered people and not just judging Lana particularly.

Edit: Good post Bitmap

The poster you're referencing called her "gross" (twice), misgendered her, and offered questionably serious support by "guessing" it was "good for him." How many strikes does it take to indicate malice?

I can honestly say as a black man that I've never worried about miniscule racist slights, even those that were purposeful, ever in my life.

Congratulations.

That's where we're at though, in the U.S. at least. If they didn't need to explain then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can argue that they shouldn't have to explain themselves, and maybe that's true, but right now the vast majority of people in the U.S. (myself included) are simply unfamiliar. If you want to change the minds of the unfamiliar masses then you'll need to justify. Real world and all.

Trans people justify their existence 24/7 in the real world. Maybe, since Wikipedia is only a few keystrokes away, posters on GAF could do the slightest, easiest research before dismissing an entire swath of people. Do you go into OTs on gaming side and say "look, I have absolutely no idea about anything related to this game, but I just feel that this game fucking sucks"?

Me personally? I'll be honest now. My first reaction to the though of transgenderism is very similar to what LAIGHTREY said. I don't mean to offend anyone by that, I really don't, but that's my gut reaction. My thought process is that it simply isn't natural. I dislike all cosmetic surgery for this reason. I don't think that elective cosmetic surgeries are things that grounded, responsible adults should want because they're basically saying that they believe that their surgeon knows better than mother nature. On the flipside, two dudes getting it on seems perfectly natural to me because both guys are experiencing biological arousal and stimulation. You can't "fake" being gay, after all.

I've reposted LAIGHTREY's opinions above. You're welcome to try to defend them if you feel he has any tenable positions. Reassignment surgery is specifically indicated for the treatment of gender dypshoria - as such, your comparison to "elective cosmetic surgeries" is somewhat disingenuous. You say you can't fake being gay? You can't fake being trans, either, and it's just as "natural" in the sense that it fucking happens whether anyone likes it or not.

Someone having surgury to change their body to look like something it's not just seems like an unhealthy extreme to me. No matter how many surgeries a MtF trans person has, the new vagina isn't a real vagina, if that makes sense. The FtM penis is even more shocking and equally unnatural. How do we explain gender dysphoria, then? I'd speculate that it's a mental condition. I don't mean that negatively, I truly don't, and I don't propose to be a psychologist with a plan of treatment. All of my knowledge stems from the sum of my personal experiences. I know that there have been times in my life when I needed help myself, and I greatly benefited from seeing a therapist and working things out. I believe that there just has to be a healthy, scientific solution to dysphoria that doesn't result in what is ultimately voluntary castration.

You are woefully undereducated. The establishment tried for years to treat trans patients with psychotherapy, to no avail. It's not a "mental condition." Trans people are just like you, except their bodies developed in the wrong direction. That's it. It bears no relation to whatever mental shit caused you to need help, and resolving gender dysphoria bears no relation to however your therapist helped you "work things out." You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Again, the Earth isn't flat.

Now, I've never known a trans individual personally and have not been exposed to their lifestyle. I admit that. I imagine most people are in the same boat. However, despite not having any exposure to the trans community I still have my pre-conceived beliefs regarding what is natural. It's my right as a human bring to have those beliefs. If my beliefs offend you then I am truly sorry as that is absolutely not my intent. If you have a rational counter to my beliefs them by all means share. I'm open-minded. Just don't call me a bigot and act like I'm insane for thinking this way. There's nothing "tolerant" in reacting like that. My beliefs, like yours, are the products of the environments and experiences that I've been exposed to during my life. They are just as valid as any until proven otherwise.

You don't know a trans person? Gee, I couldn't tell. You may want to do the most basic of preliminary research before valuing your own crappy beliefs over science and medical professionals.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

You don't know a trans person?

That's more common than you think.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

FWIW, they did make a more complex version.

That is equally bad, if not worse.
Things are not a combination of "man" and "woman" to varying degrees.

 

[HiResDes]

That box's pugilistic tone is offending me.

That is equally bad, if not worse.
Things are not a combination of "man" and "woman" to varying degrees.

You want to describe gender, sex, and identity to a ten year old, what do you do?

 

[lexi]

That's where we're at though, in the U.S. at least. If they didn't need to explain then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can argue that they shouldn't have to explain themselves, and maybe that's true, but right now the vast majority of people in the U.S. (myself included) are simply unfamiliar. If you want to change the minds of the unfamiliar masses then you'll need to justify. Real world and all.

I understand this, my point is that if you are expecting people to be calm and rational while justifying their existence and personhood then you might expect it to get a bit heated when met with resistance. Are you aware of the rate of suicide for trans people? It's the highest in the modern world. Upwards of 50%. There is already plenty of resistance happening without the pearls of wisdom of some random GAF poster.

Me personally? I'll be honest now. My first reaction to the thoughT of transgenderism is very similar to what LAIGHTREY said. I don't mean to offend anyone by that, I really don't, but that's my gut reaction. My thought process is that it simply isn't natural. I dislike all cosmetic surgery for this reason. I don't think that elective cosmetic surgeries are things that grounded, responsible adults should want because they're basically saying that they believe that their surgeon knows better than mother nature. On the flipside, two dudes getting it on seems perfectly natural to me because both guys are experiencing biological arousal and stimulation. You can't "fake" being gay, after all.

This probably isn't an uncommon first reaction. Hell even I had this reaction. I have a distinct memory of being maybe 4-5 years old and going to the doctors with my mum, and what I now realise was a transgender woman was my doctor and I just stared. Just because it's your first reaction doesn't mean it's the right one.

Someone having surgury to change their body to look like something it's not just seems like an unhealthy extreme to me. No matter how many surgeries a MtF trans person has, the new vagina isn't a real vagina, if that makes sense. The FtM penis is even more shocking and equally unnatural. How do we explain gender dysphoria, then? I'd speculate that it's a mental condition. I don't mean that negatively, I truly don't, and I don't propose to be a psychologist with a plan of treatment. All of my knowledge stems from the sum of my personal experiences. I know that there have been times in my life when I needed help myself, and I greatly benefited from seeing a therapist and working things out. I believe that there just has to be a healthy, scientific solution to dysphoria that doesn't result in what is ultimately voluntary castration.

They've actually tried other things. They've tried intense psychotherapy, they've tried testosterone therapy, the medical community has exhausted all possible treatment options for transgender people and do you know what ended up being the recommended treatment plan? HRT and surgery. Unnatural, yes, but it's a proven effective treatment. Vaccines aren't natural, neither is pretty much every medical treatment beyond the industrial revolution.

Now, I've never known a trans individual personally and have not been exposed to their lifestyle. I admit that. I imagine most people are in the same boat. However, despite not having any exposure to the trans community I still have my pre-conceived beliefs regarding what is natural. It's my right as a human bring to have those beliefs. If my beliefs offend you then I am truly sorry as that is absolutely not my intent. If you have a rational counter to my beliefs them by all means share. I'm open-minded. Just don't call me a bigot and act like I'm insane for thinking this way. There's nothing "tolerant" in reacting like that. My beliefs, like yours, are the product of the environments and experiences that I've been exposed to during my life. They are just as valid as any until proven otherwise.

As I mentioned earlier this may be part of the issue. Your beliefs are based on what you currently know and have learned throughout your life, and you say you don't know any trans people. I don't think you're a bigot, I just think you haven't had the experiences and information necessary to make informed comments on the topic.

 

[HiResDes]

: )

 

[thatbox]

I'm not arguing the "kosherness" of the word. I'm arguing that today for many people it's not felt as pejorative (even if it is). As a result ignorance can easily pass for bigotry.

I think you're overreacting there with heavy handed-ness, that's the danger.

Thankfully nobody in this thread has used that word, so your worry seems to be academic.

1. I didn't say anything about the law. I'm speaking in terms of human beings being respectful of one another.

2. Isn't it the goal of the trans community to be accepted and included in every facet of society without discrimination? Banning everyone who raises their voice in opposition won't accomplish that. If anything it only cements an "us vs. them" mentality and makes things worse for everyone.

Worse for everyone? I've been talking to trans women about this thread, and they seem to support the moderation thus far for the most part. There is also no "opposition" - this isn't an "issue" with two sides, the same as marriage equality isn't an "issue" with two sides. There are facts and the weight of history and there are shitty opinions which arise from either a lack of education or an abundance of hate. I don't see any reason to tolerate the shitty opinions when scientists and medical professionals can provide us with the straight dope. Anyone who feels entitled to spout this shitty opinion while admittedly knowing nothing about the topic (as several people so far have proudly professed), well - you have to go halfway to be met halfway.

That box's pugilistic tone is offending me.

I'm a bigot, obviously. You can only hope someone will stand up for you as righteously as I'm defending trans people, I guess.

 

[HiResDes]

Throwing around terms like bigot in an unsubstantiated manner should be a bannable offense.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You go girl!

I think she looks good, and I'm glad she finally feels like she has her body. Instead of the body nature decided she needed.

I'm still completely floored by that old thread blamespace found on the first page. God I hope some of you guys have changed your stances since then.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

That box's pugilistic tone is offending me.



You want to describe gender, sex, and identity to a ten year old, what do you do?

That's not aimed a ten year old though, is it?
Personally, I wouldn't describe gender, sex and identity to a ten year old.
These are all simplifications and labels that adults seem to need to make it easier to categorize others, which I believe a child should be spared of for as long as possible.

Just teach the child to enjoy doing whatever they want so long as they're not doing bad things, and tell them that some people might not like that because they have their own thoughts as to how others should behave even if they're not doing bad things.

 

[Freezie KO]

Worse for everyone? I've been talking to trans women about this thread, and they seem to support the moderation thus far for the most part. There is also no "opposition" - this isn't an "issue" with two sides, the same as marriage equality isn't an "issue" with two sides. There are facts and the weight of history and there are shitty opinions which arise from either a lack of education or an abundance of hate. I don't see any reason to tolerate the shitty opinions when scientists and medical professionals can provide us with the straight dope.

What do scientists and medical professionals have to say about marriage equality?

I'm in favor of marriage equality. I think people against it are going to look mighty dumb in 40 years. That said, it is most certainly an "issue." Marriage equality is not a phenomenon, such as gravity, that can be explained with facts and science.

You can explain that homosexuality is naturally occurring or prevalent, but science will not come down on either side for the topic of "marriage equality."

I feel your rhetoric travels down a very slippery slope when you begin claiming every talking point can be definitively resolved with science and that you hold the answers, of which your opponents are either ignorant or hateful. So in defense of actual scientific inquiry, please be more careful.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

I guess I'm one of the people that just doesn't get it. I have no problem with it, it's a personal choice, but if you're born with male or female genitalia I can't help but think of you as being stuck in that gender. You can cosmetically modify your body but IMO that doesn't magically turn you into the gender you want to be. It will be interesting to see what neuroscience can tell us about this phenomenon because the plasticity of the human brain is not very well understood.

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child. Until we develop artificial or replacement organs including sex organs (which may very well happen in the future for a variety of reasons) I can't consider a transgender fully transformed from one gender to the other. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel there is a deception there and that that is where a lot of the prejudice against it comes from.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Thankfully nobody in this thread has used that word, so your worry seems to be academic.

Because this is the only trans-related thread on GAF ever. And no one has used that word on GAF ever, and no one will.

 

[thatbox]

What do scientists and medical professionals have to say about marriage equality?

I'm in favor of marriage equality. I think people against it are going to look mighty dumb in 40 years. That said, it is most certainly an "issue." Marriage equality is not a phenomenon, such as gravity, that can be explained with facts and science.

You can explain that homosexuality is naturally occurring or prevalent, but science will not come down on either side for the topic of "marriage equality."

I feel your rhetoric travels down a very slippery slope when you begin claiming every talking point can be definitively resolved with science and that you hold the answers, of which your opponents are either ignorant or hateful. So in defense of actual scientific inquiry, please be more careful.

I never claimed it did, just that there aren't two sides to every issue. Did women's suffrage have two sides? African-American civil rights? There's plenty of evidence on transgender people, so there's no reason to tolerate bullshit.

That said, you're welcome to PM me any legitimate, rigorous studies that demonstrate that homosexual couples are significantly worse parents that heterosexual parents.

 

[Kevitivity]

He should do whatever makes him happy. But we should not fool ourselves - there is NO SUCH THING as a "sex change".

 

[Wiktor]

She looks surprisingly normal. Ugly, but like an ugly woman instead of man dressed as a woman, which is how many post-gender change man do. Her doctors did a really good job.

 

[water_wendi]

I guess I'm one of the people that just doesn't get it. I have no problem with it, it's a personal choice, but if you're born with male or female genitalia I can't help but think of you as being stuck in that gender. You can cosmetically modify your body but IMO that doesn't magically turn you into the gender you want to be.

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child. Until we develop artificial or replacement organs including sex organs (which may very well happen in the future for a variety of reasons) I can't consider a transgender fully transformed from one gender to the other. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel there is a deception there and that that is where a lot of the prejudice against it comes from.

He should do whatever makes him happy. But we should not fool ourselves - there is NO SUCH THING as a "sex change".

Every fucking time.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

He should do whatever makes him happy. But we should not fool ourselves - there is NO SUCH THING as a "sex change".

Technically, no.
There is no such thing as a "sex change".
But people usually aren't referring to what type of gametes one produce when speaking of "sex", so "sex change" colloquially come to mean a change in the visible sexual characteristics - from a male to a female set.

I guess I'm one of the people that just doesn't get it. I have no problem with it, it's a personal choice, but if you're born with male or female genitalia I can't help but think of you as being stuck in that gender. You can cosmetically modify your body but IMO that doesn't magically turn you into the gender you want to be. It will be interesting to see what neuroscience can tell us about this phenomenon because the plasticity of the human brain is not very well understood.

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child. Until we develop artificial or replacement organs including sex organs (which may very well happen in the future for a variety of reasons) I can't consider a transgender fully transformed from one gender to the other. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel there is a deception there and that that is where a lot of the prejudice against it comes from.

This line of reasoning is erroneous, as being female does not require being able to menstruate or being able to give birth to a child.

 

[HiResDes]

For the record, I like the blonde hair, but yeah the pink is giving me too much of a reject Run Lola Run vibe. Or as my man Richard Lewis would say, Run Lola Run, from hell

 

[GCX]

I guess I'm one of the people that just doesn't get it. I have no problem with it, it's a personal choice, but if you're born with male or female genitalia I can't help but think of you as being stuck in that gender. You can cosmetically modify your body but IMO that doesn't magically turn you into the gender you want to be. It will be interesting to see what neuroscience can tell us about this phenomenon because the plasticity of the human brain is not very well understood.

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child. Until we develop artificial or replacement organs including sex organs (which may very well happen in the future for a variety of reasons) I can't consider a transgender fully transformed from one gender to the other. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel there is a deception there and that that is where a lot of the prejudice against it comes from.

I have a close friend who is transgender. After he began his treatment he's seemingly happier and feels more natural about himself.

It's impossible for me or you to "get" how frustrating it feels to be in a wrong body because we've never experienced it. But I don't really need to get it, I see the positive change that has happened in my friend's personality and that's all I need to understand. For me it's simple as that.

Also what SquiddyBiscuit said above.

 

[lexi]

She looks surprisingly normal. Ugly, but like an ugly woman instead of man dressed as a woman, which is how many post-gender change man do. Her doctors did a really good job.

Offtopic slightly: It always amused me how often I seemed to hear this from people I knew once they found out about my transition. I haven't had any surgery.

 

[Freezie KO]

I never claimed it did, just that there aren't two sides to every issue. Did women's suffrage have two sides? African-American civil rights? There's plenty of evidence on transgender people, so there's no reason to tolerate bullshit.

Yes, historically, those things had two sides. More, in fact, if you want to get nuanced.

My opposition is to your rhetoric that such issues are not "issues," but rather the realm of scientific inquiry.

I encourage you to use fact-based assessments in siding with issues, but women's suffrage is not the same as gravity. Gravity isn't an issue. It can be explained through the scientific method of observation and theorizing and all the steps I left out.

That is not the same as women's suffrage. You can use the fact-based assessment that women are as smart (or smarter!) than men, which can be arrived at through scientific studies. But that is merely a pillar on which to support your argument. Such a study would be worthless to a person who is only voting against women's rights so that he can maintain his hegemony as a white landowning male. Because the study hasn't "solved" the issue, science itself has not weighed in on the idea of voting rights.

That said, you're welcome to PM me any legitimate, rigorous studies that demonstrate that homosexual couples are significantly worse parents that heterosexual parents.

1. Why would I do that when I neither believe such studies exist nor do I agree with them?

2. While such studies should inform a rational person's opinion on an issue such as marriage equality, those things do not, in and of themselves, take a side on the issue.

For an "out there" example, there could be a study that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals, but such a study does nothing to quell the fears of someone opposing marriage equality on a linguistic/semantic basis. As such, the facts have not actually weighed in on the side of an issue.

I only say this to you so perhaps you will not needlessly politicize scientific inquiry in the future.

 

[Wiktor]

Offtopic slightly: It always amused me how often I seemed to hear this from people I knew once they found out about my transition. I haven't had any surgery.

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.
I mean, we recently elected a post-gender sex woman into our parliment and she looks like this:

I have no problem considering her a woman, but dear God, she is one hell of an ugly and manly woman .

 

[Uncle Rupee]

This line of reasoning is erroneous, as being female does not require being able to menstruate or being able to give birth to a child.

Of course it's not required but it is a big part of being female. You can't really deny that. Even women who are born barren dream of having children. It also happens to be a part of the bodily function that sex-reassignment surgery cannot duplicate. So it leaves people with that feeling that it is all just cosmetic.

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.

Probably not. A lot of older women could easily pass for men.

 

[lexi]

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.

a) No
b) 27
c) YMMV, I've seen 40+ year olds make great transitions, and under 20 year olds make not so great transitions.

I mean, we recently elected a post-gender sex woman into our parliment and she looks like this:

This is pretty much what most people think when they hear 'transsexual woman'. Often the case when you do leave it too late, all I see in that photo are the effects of testosterone + age.

 

[spiderman123]

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.
I mean, we recently elected a post-gender sex woman into our parliment and she looks like this:
http://img.interia.pl/pomponik/nimg/e/o/pom5477774.jpg
I have no problem considering her a woman, but dear God, she is one hell of an ugly and manly woman ;) .[/QUOTE]

I have no problems with transgendered but that pic does an injustice

[IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m37hs4Ywhy1r0xjpd.gif


Jenna Talackova had wonderful work done

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Of course it's not required but it is a big part of being female. You can't really deny that. Even women who are born barren dream of having children. It also happens to be a part of the bodily function that sex-reassignment surgery cannot duplicate. So it leaves people with that feeling that it is all just cosmetic.

It's only a big part of being female for people who do want children, menstruation I'll let slide because it's nothing more than an annoying biological process that doesn't really enrich a woman in a way that makes it essential to her identity.
Not having any children, and not being able to have any children, doesn't make you any less of a woman.

 

[hateradio]

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.
I mean, we recently elected a post-gender sex woman into our parliment and she looks like this:
http://img.interia.pl/pomponik/nimg/e/o/pom5477774.jpg
I have no problem considering her a woman, but dear God, she is one hell of an ugly and manly woman .

Not all men and women are beautiful, I don't think that has to do with the transition itself.

 

[GCX]

You guys can only imagine what happened a few years ago when the head priest of my small hometown's church announced she's going through a sex change.

That was rough but good thing she's seem happy now and the media treats her pretty well.

 

[Sibylus]

Of course it's not required but it is a big part of being female. You can't really deny that. Even women who are born barren dream of having children. It also happens to be a part of the bodily function that sex-reassignment surgery cannot duplicate. So it leaves people with that feeling that it is all just cosmetic.

I've certainly known women who can't bear children (but wish to), some are trans. Some as yet have had no hormones and no surgery, either, yet the desire is there all the same.

 

[Mumei]

Let's not turn this thread into an excuse to post pictures of transgender people you find unattractive or attractive.

I only say this to you so perhaps you will not needlessly politicize scientific inquiry in the future.

I do not agree with your logic here.

Insofar as both sides make claims that are on issues that scientific inquiry can illuminate whether said claims are supported by evidence, scientific inquiry clearly does support one side over the other in many instances. For instance, it is entirely possible - likely, even - that someone who is not engaging in good faith in a debate about women's suffrage might hold his views because he wants to maintain hegemony. But if men qualify for voting rights, and women are shown to be as intelligent as men, does that not show that - assuming we want to treat men and women equally - we should allow women the vote.

As an aside, this was a peculiarly archaic example for you to have chosen.

At some point in these debates, people make claims about factual matters, which aren't just a matter of opinion but a matter of, as you say, scientific inquiry.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Sorry lexi, I am not familiar with your history, so if you don't mind me asking: am I correct to assume you are a trans? Are you a man before and now a woman or the other way around? Is your avatar you?

Ah, I apologize if this question is perhaps too personal.

 

[dose]

Good for him, if that's how he wants to be. Hadn't heard about this.

 

[jimi_dini]

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child.

So a human that was born as a female, but without a vagina isn't a female?

Or a human, that was born as a female, but unable to carry a child is also not a female?

 

[subversus]

Were you girly looking before? And how old are you? Isn't it the older you are the harder it gets for transition to look normal.
I mean, we recently elected a post-gender sex woman into our parliment and she looks like this:

I have no problem considering her a woman, but dear God, she is one hell of an ugly and manly woman .

looks like an average old woman to me.

 

[iirate]

Yes, I definitely agree with you here. Placid tone is great if both parties signal they want it, in all other cases it's possible to argue strenuously and still respect the other party.


Well, what needs to be pointed out is that you're fixating too strongly on the physical act of surgery in isolation. Gender dysphoria is not a "form over function" crisis, but the exact opposite: brain structure and body structure are fundamentally at odds, it causes no small amount of (involuntary) distress because their brain is primed for a body and a hormone balance that was not assigned to them at birth. Hormone replacement and surgery exist and are sought out not as some aesthetic conceit, but as a medical correction of a situation far worse than any measure of sterility or reduced sexual satisfaction. Quality of life, life itself, those are the things that hang in the balance here.

I just wanted to say that this post is one of the greatest explanations of gender dysphoria I've ever read. Thank you.

Absolutely 0 problems with this, good for her.

Not sure why this kind of private stuff needs to be newsworthy though, its so personal. Oh well.

It's hard not to make news of it. At the very least, the trans individual wants people to use their correct name and pronouns, and those that already know them will need some sort of explanation. Believe me, it sucks - I have a growing list of people that I want to come out to and know will be cool, but it can be hard to find the right time or place to bring it up when you know that it won't be a big deal.

I guess I'm one of the people that just doesn't get it. I have no problem with it, it's a personal choice, but if you're born with male or female genitalia I can't help but think of you as being stuck in that gender. You can cosmetically modify your body but IMO that doesn't magically turn you into the gender you want to be. It will be interesting to see what neuroscience can tell us about this phenomenon because the plasticity of the human brain is not very well understood.

Being female means more than just looking or sounding the part; a transgender female will not menstruate or be able to give birth to a child. Until we develop artificial or replacement organs including sex organs (which may very well happen in the future for a variety of reasons) I can't consider a transgender fully transformed from one gender to the other. And because of that, I think a lot of people feel there is a deception there and that that is where a lot of the prejudice against it comes from.

So someone can't be a woman if they don't menstruate or are unable to give birth? There are some cis women I know that will be sad to hear they aren't "real" women then.

Spoiler

TRANSLATION: Gender and sex is messy. We treat it as if it is a binary system, but the truth is that there is a great deal of variation in human beings. You assume that you have XY chromosomes, but without being tested, there is no way to be completely sure. Along those same lines, there's relatively new research supporting the assertion that trans individuals literally have a brain that doesn't match their body.

He should do whatever makes him happy. But we should not fool ourselves - there is NO SUCH THING as a "sex change".

There may not be such a thing as a "sex change" - I personally find the term quite antiquated, but there are procedures that help trans women find comfort in their own bodies (and none of those are a requirement to be trans, either).