|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
I just watched a TV interview with Germaine Greer on BBC Newsnight where she stated with clarity that an M2F post operative trans person cannot be a real woman.
Your thoughts, not on Greer, but on the topic , would be appreciated. Why not on Greer? Well, if you must, but I'd rather make this a thread with surgical precision and clarity.
The questions it raises for me are based around the question "What is a woman?"
I also wonder if those of us who are Cisgender can answer this topic with any meaningful authority.
[Updated on: Fri, 23 October 2015 22:50]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
I, too, saw that interview, and it didn't increase my low opinion of GG. All she did in that interview was to show how inflexible she was in trying to impose her own definitions and labels on other people.
Almost everything in such a discussion depends on definitions, many of which can be somewhat subjective and dependent on the context of a particular society. Personally, I feel like a real man (i.e. I'm really a man), but If someone chooses to define a 'real man' as a male who is 100% heterosexual then I won't fit their definition. Someone else might choose to define 'real man' on a biological level such that he's capable of impregnating a female, in which case some 100% heterosexual men will be excluded.
Of course, one could choose to define gender in terms of X and Y chromosomes, though even that would leave some (i.e. with XXY or XYY chromosomes) in limbo. Also, a pre-pubertal boy might have his XY chromosomes but would hardly be considered a 'real man'. Furthermore, scientific studies show that genes can be switch on or off at different stages of development, thereby altering the physical and mental characteristics related to gender and sexuality in those with 'fixed' male (XY) or female (XX) chromosomes.
Perhaps what most people mean when they use a phrase such as 'real man' or 'real woman' is that such a person is a prime example of manliness or womanliness because he or she exhibits many of the traits and characteristics they attribute to that gender. Their personal selection of gender attributes (e.g. manly = virile, strong, brave, etc. or womanly = gentle, caring, nurturing, etc.) is likely to be mostly a set of stereotypes that amount to little more than just caricatures. In reality, by their definitions, there will be few if any 'real men' or 'real women', because real people are far too complex to be able to be put into simple classifications.
In my own subjective view, trying to define a gender is as difficult and relativistic as trying to define sexuality. How gay do I have to be to call myself gay? If I have 100 sexual partners and none were female? If I once had an erotic thought about a woman, does that mean I'm not a 'real homosexual'? Labels can be used as useful shorthand, but they should not be used to lock someone into the straightjacket of a definition. And labels regarding gender or sexuality should not be forced on people against their will.
Thus, if someone with male physical characteristics says (s)he feels like a woman trapped in a man's body, who am I to say that (s)he is wrong and must define his/herself in terms of sexual organs? If a man loses his genitals but he still feels like a man, who am I to say he's no longer a real man? If a woman has her womb removed, is she no longer a real woman? If a hormone imbalance makes a woman grow a beard, it may look odd to me, but I have no right to say she isn't a real woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, no. Their genetic material will always be male or female, no matter what changes are made to their plumbing and/or hormones.
They can feel they are, and act and behave as the opposite sex, live as one, but they are not actually. They are for all intents and purposes except procreation, which is possibly the biggest definition of the term anyway.
If you loosen the definition of male and female enough, you can say they really have become the opposite sex, but you have to really loosen those definitions.
I can dunk a tiger in black ink, but it isn't a panther. It might even live as one, mate with one, but it will pass on tiger genes, not panther genes. Simplistic, but it fits the argument. A transgender post-operative cannot pass on any genes at all, not without more science anyway.
[Updated on: Sat, 24 October 2015 05:47]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
"Quote:"Smokr wrote on Sat, 24 October 2015 06:42In my opinion, no. Their genetic material will always be male or female, no matter what changes are made to their plumbing and/or hormones.
They can feel they are, and act and behave as the opposite sex, live as one, but they are not actually. They are for all intents and purposes except procreation, which is possibly the biggest definition of the term anyway.
If you loosen the definition of male and female enough, you can say they really have become the opposite sex, but you have to really loosen those definitions.
I can dunk a tiger in black ink, but it isn't a panther. It might even live as one, mate with one, but it will pass on tiger genes, not panther genes. Simplistic, but it fits the argument. A transgender post-operative cannot pass on any genes at all, not without more science anyway.
--
I am writing from a position of incomplete ignorance, but let me postulate something for you.
As you probably know, we start out the same in the womb, sort of unisex and then either male characteristics develop into female or vice versa. It's one of those, and i could look it up. This is triggered by the genetic blueprint every embryo carries. {I looked it up. See Development of the reproductive system}
Let me postulate that something, I have no idea what, happens to the fœtus as it develops and stops this physical change from happening, but that the underlying genetic makeup says "This body is not congruent with its genetic makeup."
What happens to your thought process then?
[Updated on: Sat, 24 October 2015 09:04]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Quote:Smokr wrote on Sat, 24 October 2015 05:42In my opinion, no. Their genetic material will always be male or female, no matter what changes are made to their plumbing and/or hormones.
They can feel they are, and act and behave as the opposite sex, live as one, but they are not actually. They are for all intents and purposes except procreation, which is possibly the biggest definition of the term anyway.
If you loosen the definition of male and female enough, you can say they really have become the opposite sex, but you have to really loosen those definitions.
I can dunk a tiger in black ink, but it isn't a panther. It might even live as one, mate with one, but it will pass on tiger genes, not panther genes. Simplistic, but it fits the argument. A transgender post-operative cannot pass on any genes at all, not without more science anyway.
--
Did you read this thread <http://forum.iomfats.org/t/8719/> and the link to the BBC program that was in it?
The argument about panther and tiger genes is not at all relevant here. They are different species. Men and women are not different species. The idea that within a given species genes are fixed and always expressed is out of date. We are not just the product of the sequences of the base pairs in our DNA. The arguments about nature or nurture which assume there is a dichotomy are as foolish as arguing about whether light is a particle or a wave.
Whether a bit of tissue becomes a penis or a clitoris, or whether another bit of tissue becomes testes or ovaries doesn't depend merely on whether the foetus has XX or XY chromosomes. It also depends partly on other genes (e.g. those that affect sensitivity to different types of testosterone), partly on whether other genes are switched on, and partly on the environment in the womb.
e.g. Development of brain and genitals are affected strongly by levels of testosterone in the womb, but brain and genitals develop at different times. Genitalia develop some time before the brain and levels of different types of testosterone can change between those times. Thus a person can be born with a penis but with a brain and emotional outlook more like a woman. Is a physical attribute (penis) more important than a mental attribute? If so, what about 'genuine' XY boys who are born without a penis or whose penis has to be removed for a medical reason? Are they not really male?
In fact, boys in that situation (e.g. a baby boy whose penis was destroyed by bungled circumcision) were often 'gender reassigned' on the advice of doctors who believed that a boy without a penis would be happier as a girl. Almost invariably, those doctors were wrong and the boy who had testes removed and was brought up as a girl really felt he was a boy, even long before he became aware of the fact that he'd lost his male genitalia.
As for a transgender post-ops not being able to pass on genes - that's a red herring. Lots of XY men and XX women cannot, for various reasons, pass on their genes. Does that they are not 'real men' or 'real women'?
Of course, we can all define any word (e.g. 'man' or 'woman') as we see fit. Definitions can change with time as more information is obtained and as society's attitudes change. There are those that say we can't call ourselves gay because their definition of gay does not include homosexual. There were those who said that 'all men are created equal' does not include black people because black people are not included in their definition of 'men'. And, as women are clearly not men and the words clearly state that all MEN are created equal, then some people can define men in such a way that the declaration of equality won't extend to women.
So I disagree with GG's main contention. However, I did have a little sympathy with a subsidiary point she made regarding a 'celebrity' (whose name I forget) who recently transitioned from male to female and won some sort of (magazine?) award as something like 'woman of the year'. GG thought the fuss and that award was misogynistic in that it implied that a man-become-woman was in some way superior to a real woman'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biology is rarely digital; true or false, one or the other.
A transgender does not cross an imaginary line and go from one state to another.
Biology is analog. There are shades and degrees.
From my standpoint, a true and actual sexuality is hard to define absolutely, but I see it as a person who has the genetic makeup of a male or female and the appropriate physical makeup.
Transgenderism bends those parameters, but doesn't break them.
A baby in utero who has an incident or condition that alters their physical or mental makeup can become not fully male or female. It happens. But as the definition can be general, they can fit in one or the other, or even blend the two. Are they still entirely male or female if they lack the equipment? Depends on how rigidly you adhere to those definitions.
Transgender by definition is no longer male or female. You can't turn a tangerine into an orange, but you can alter their genetics until are almost identical. But they are still not an orange. They are a tangerine with differences.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-garden/Hover%20Fly%2 0that%20looks%20like%20a%20bee%20at%20Chicago%20Garden.png
Looks like a bee. Acts like a bee. But isn't a bee.
A male or female can undergo all the surgery possible, but they cannot magically become a female. And vice-versa.
However, what does it matter? If one is more comfortable living as the other sex, and looks, acts, and lives as the opposite sex, that is success enough. If they want to procreate, there are methods to do so. They just can't make it happen naturally. Big deal.
Maybe my definition of sex is too rigid? Maybe.
But a male can never become a true and actual and real female, and vice-versa. But the everyday differences don't really matter. What does is their mental comfort and happiness.
How many people have alterations to take on animal characteristics? Not many, but they will never really be that animal they had whiskers surgically imbedded to resemble. The tattoos will not make them that animal. They can crawl around and purr all they want, but they will never be a big cat.
But if they're happy and enjoying themselves and not harming anyone else, go for it.
I'm sure in time it will be possible to have your genetic makeup altered to the point that your body is entirely changed to the opposite sex. Not yet, but in time. Then maybe I'll agree that they are entirely and actually the other sex.
[Updated on: Sat, 24 October 2015 17:01]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Quote:Smokr wrote on Sat, 24 October 2015 16:54
Maybe my definition of sex is too rigid? Maybe.
--
Yes, in my opinion it is. You choose a definition of gender based upon your own narrow idea of biology.
As I see it, that's the same as those who define homosexuality as a sickness and who define gay sex as an unnatural abomination. Are they not allowed to define those terms in accordance with their own rigid ideas? After all, gay sex can't pass on genetic material any more than a post-op transexual. By that reasoning, a boy or man who loses his genitalia isn't a proper male.
Of course, your view isn't unique. A hundred years or more ago lots of people had defined real humans in terms of caucasian. To them other 'races' were primitive and not fully evolved. Just because others might share a definition doesn't make it reasonable.
Again, you use inappropriate analogies (tangerine & orange) by confusing differences between species with differences within a species. The example of the bee begs the question: most bees are non-fertile females, yet biologically are they not still referred to as females?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
There are those whose definition of 'marriage' means that it can only be between a man and a woman. There are even some who say it can't be a real marriage unless it's part of a religious ritual conducted by a clergyman. There are those who define 'normal sex' in such a way that sex between men is 'abnormal sex'. They are free to define words in any way they choose as long as they don't impose those definitions on others and thereby cause them hurt and/or restrict their freedoms.
I think I might have been a bit overzealous in promoting a looser definition of 'woman' than a strict biological/chromosomal alternative. I apologise if that is so. However, in mitigation, I believe that the looser definition is less likely to hurt or restrict freedoms of those who feel strongly within themselves that they really are women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
"Quote:"WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 14:58Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
--
I wonder if folk are talking of changing their sex, or of making their outward genitalia congruent with their psyche, or their genuine genetic makeup?
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 15:47]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Quote:WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 14:58Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
--
Please state your definitions of 'man' and 'woman'. Do those definitions mean that 'male human' is exactly the same as 'man'?
What is the difference between 'lady' and 'woman'? (Old joke: Who's that lady? That's no lady, it's my wife.)
I'm sure you know that the words 'gentleman' and 'lady' meant something very different 200-300 years ago and are aware that definitions of words often change with time. Nowadays if an adult male has sex with a male aged 16, it's not illegal. Forty years ago he would have been considered a paedophile. So the definition of paedophile has changed as society has changed. Do you believe that your definitions of man and woman are the only absolutely correct ones and will be fixed in stone forever?
The generalisations about muscle, skeleton, etc may apply to 'average' males and 'average' females but there are many individual females stronger and faster than the 'average' man. There are many males who are weaker and smaller than an 'average' female. If you're gay, then you're not an 'average' man. Making predictions and judgments about individuals based on averages is both unwise and unfair. If an average gay man is not as strong as the average straight man then it would be wrong to assume all gay mean are less strong.
As for voice - I'm sure you've some heard men with higher voices than some women. How often have you heard a song on the radio and not been sure if the singer was male or female?
And what's the meaning of that gibberish about subatomic level?
Do you know much about developmental biology?
(BTW- I have an Honours degree in Human Physiology).
Have you studied much about the psychology of gender identification and how that relates to physical differences in the brain between human males and females? If not, then it suggests that your not-so-humble opinions quoted above are no more than mere prejudice.
However, I do support your right to express your offensive prejudices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote:"Kitzyma wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 16:42
"Quote:"WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 14:58Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
--
Please state your definitions of 'man' and 'woman'. Do those definitions mean that 'male human' is exactly the same as 'man'?
What is the difference between 'lady' and 'woman'? (Old joke: Who's that lady? That's no lady, it's my wife.)
I'm sure you know that the words 'gentleman' and 'lady' meant something very different 200-300 years ago and are aware that definitions of words often change with time. Nowadays if an adult male has sex with a male aged 16, it's not illegal. Forty years ago he would have been considered a paedophile. So the definition of paedophile has changed as society has changed. Do you believe that your definitions of man and woman are the only absolutely correct ones and will be fixed in stone forever?
The generalisations about muscle, skeleton, etc may apply to 'average' males and 'average' females but there are many individual females stronger and faster than the 'average' man. There are many males who are weaker and smaller than an 'average' female. If you're gay, then you're not an 'average' man. Making predictions and judgments about individuals based on averages is both unwise and unfair. If an average gay man is not as strong as the average straight man then it would be wrong to assume all gay mean are less strong.
As for voice - I'm sure you've some heard men with higher voices than some women. How often have you heard a song on the radio and not been sure if the singer was male or female?
And what's the meaning of that gibberish about subatomic level?
Do you know much about developmental biology?
(BTW- I have an Honours degree in Human Physiology).
Have you studied much about the psychology of gender identification and how that relates to physical differences in the brain between human males and females? If not, then it suggests that your not-so-humble opinions quoted above are no more than mere prejudice.
However, I do support your right to express your offensive prejudices.
--
Kitzyma,
2 points to make here, and I will say the first is more important than the second.
Firstly, I'm not sure what you are arguing for. Are you trying to convince me that my view is wrong, or your view is right? Because if that is the case I base my opinion on how something looks and makes me view it... and I am not going to back that up with science because once again this is an opinion based on... my opinion. One of the many traps society falls into is we must champion the politically correct angle. Why do I have the opinion I do regarding Transexual people? Because the vast majority look hideous and unnatural. Now you could argue that comment is highly offensive? This may be true but it is an opinion based on truth, not what others wish to hear. I will end the first point regarding the fact you think I am prejudice. If I were to go into the street and start hurling abuse or physically attacking a person for the way they look or wish to be, then granted that would make me prejudice, but since all I have done is express an opinion that is different from yours I do not see how that makes me a bad person.
My second point is this, and is much more direct. I take note of all the examples you give of women being the same as men in some cases, like strength, fitness, voice pitch etc. But really, lets be honest here at the end of the day no matter what what procedure a transsexual undergoes to be a woman, they will always look like a man. And that is why I am with Germaine Greer.
Like I said in my first post, be who you like, do what you want as long as it does not harm anyone else. I'm not arguing for the world to think like me or be like me, all I did was have an opinion. I'm a gay man and As a gay man I accept that some folk will have a negative opinion about my lifestyle and I'm ok with that because that's their opinion. As long as they don't harm me physically or hurl abuse at me when I'm going about my life, why should I be angry about what they think of me? [/font-size]
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 19:26] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:timmy wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 15:28
"Quote:"WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 14:58Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
--
I wonder if folk are talking of changing their sex, or of making their outward genitalia congruent with their psyche, or their genuine genetic makeup?
--
Timmy, I'm sorry but the question confused me. eeeek 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this topic about gender, sexuality, or physical norms?
I thought it was a question about whether a transgender can become a true and actual member of the opposite sex.
No transgender can become the opposite sex without numerous changes that simply cannot be performed. There are far too many differences between the sexes to ever be completed.
There are differences in muscle mass and distribution, multiple differences in skeletal structure, brain structure, endocrine system, circulatory system, respiratory system, even skin, none of which can be changed from one sex to the other.
Hormone therapies can alter hair distribution and patterns, some muscle distribution, some fatty deposit tendencies, and other secondary characteristics, but it cannot change them all, or even most, let alone any of the primary sexual differnces, like bone structure of the hips, rib cage, and mandible, those being the three main and largest differences in the skeletal system.
If a typically normal male with working reproductive systems becomes a transgender female, they will no longer have a working reproductive system, let alone all those other female characteristics that outline if not define a normal female.
The question is... is this statement true?
"Quote:"an M2F post operative trans person cannot be a real woman
Yes, it is true. Provided a 'real woman' is a human being with two x chromosomes, a female reproductive system and other normative physical traits and characteristics. Even given lee-way for variation and mutation.
They will not have two X chromosomes, not have female sex organs or a menstrual cycle, never be able to pass on maternal genetic material or give birth, will not have a female pelvis or any of the general female skeletal system traits ( http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/see-the-skele tal-differences-between-women-and-men), not have a female brain structure ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.ht m) and likely will never be able to spend three hours at the store just to buy some milk ( http://www.infographicsshowcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 07/men-vs-women-shopping-infographic-small.png). Okay, that last is a bit facetious, but still accurate - men and women shop very differently, though this is more a psychological difference than a physical, it is still a difference between the sexes, even if not one that enters the discussion of post-operative differences.
There are so many differences they are too numerous to bother going into for this discussion.
No. A normative male cannot ever become a normative female. Nor vice-versa. They can become something closer to the opposite sex than they started. And they can become something they are more comfortable living as. That's the only real point of the procedure anyway. So long as the qualifier 'real' is used, the question has a clear and obvious answer, not matter the reasonable qualifications used to determine 'real woman'.
Is an asexual a real male or a real female? It is neither.
If you define a 'real woman' simply as someone who wears dresses and high heels, than there are a lot of very hairy 'real women' with rather large bulges in the front of their pantyhose.
If being a 'real woman' is merely living as one, then yes, they can become a 'real woman' and do so without surgery or hormones. I guess we just have to define 'real' in this scenario.
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 20:30]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disappointed I missed the interview. Ill have to try and hunt it out online. Was it related to the petition to have her banned from speaking at a university due to her views on trans? I really feel like the issue is the current cause celebre, everyone rushing to prove how forward thinking they are by supporting trans issues and shouting down anyone who disagrees. I think GG gets an unnecessarily harsh rap, you'd think she was looking to ban the surgeries and have anyone not 'born' a woman dragged through the streets. People get too hung up on the biology of it all, look at the cases in the press recently of children being raised as a 'different' sex and preparing for surgery at, what seems to many people too young an age. Are we really to believe that a 6 year old boy who wants a become a girl has any real interest in having a vagina? They want to be a girl because they want to do what society dictates are 'girly' things. I think this is where GG is coming from with her views, people conforming to gender stereotypes and the creation of woman in mans image and a part of me thinks this issue is being used against her not so much for her views on it but as a way to bash feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
Quote:WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 19:27
"Quote:"timmy wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 15:28
"Quote:"WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 14:58Imho you cannot change your sex no matter what bits you chop off or bolt on... OR how much hormone potion you swallow, inject or whatever.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Start taking the body apart at the sub-atomic level and its crystal clear. Not to mention the skeletal structure, muscle development and Heloooo, the voice??
I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. If people wanna do that to themselves because they hold a belief they are in the wrong body then fine, go ahead - it takes all sorts to make a world. But I'm with Germaine Greer on her opinion and I happen to think what she actually said was not offensive at all. It was the interviewer trying to stir up shit!
--
I wonder if folk are talking of changing their sex, or of making their outward genitalia congruent with their psyche, or their genuine genetic makeup?
--
Timmy, I'm sorry but the question confused me. eeeek
--
What I mean is, are these folk, internally, what one would describe as a woman, and are they simply having a piece of surgery to correct the dangly parts, and create an innie instead of an outie?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a background on why this thread has been created please see the thread started by Timmy called Is a post operative Trans M2F person a real woman?
Before even viewing the above thread, some days ago I stumbled across a news article regarding a standing ovation a Transgender person called Caitlyn Jenner got for speaking at the event. Before this clip I had no idea who he was. He was being introduced on stage by a woman who used the word "Courageous." I watched as he got to his feet and made his way to the stage in a white dress and thought..."Hmm, not a bad effort" and then he spoke. Straight away (whether right or wrong) I cringed. I just could not help it. For me it was a natural response, not something I had forced my way to feel. My parents, nor any person I have ever associated with taught me that feelings towards these people should be one of negativity and yet... that's how I felt.
Having found the clip, take a look and tell me what you think. Please be completely honest with your thoughts and feelings and reply here what they were. I like to think of myself as a laid back guy who accepts most things. Sure I might have my own private thoughts on them, but for the most part I will always be accommodating on other people's beliefs (after all I'm from the UK and you have to be otherwise the thought police are just round the corner)
I'm gonna shut up now.... here is the clip. https://youtu.be/D3TtQ5wBLjQ
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 21:03] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:Smokr wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 20:06Is this topic about gender, sexuality, or physical norms?
I thought it was a question about whether a transgender can become a true and actual member of the opposite sex.
No transgender can become the opposite sex without numerous changes that simply cannot be performed. There are far too many differences between the sexes to ever be completed.
There are differences in muscle mass and distribution, multiple differences in skeletal structure, brain structure, endocrine system, circulatory system, respiratory system, even skin, none of which can be changed from one sex to the other.
Hormone therapies can alter hair distribution and patterns, some muscle distribution, some fatty deposit tendencies, and other secondary characteristics, but it cannot change them all, or even most, let alone any of the primary sexual differnces, like bone structure of the hips, rib cage, and mandible, those being the three main and largest differences in the skeletal system.
If a typically normal male with working reproductive systems becomes a transgender female, they will no longer have a working reproductive system, let alone all those other female characteristics that outline if not define a normal female.
The question is... is this statement true?
"Quote:"an M2F post operative trans person cannot be a real woman
Yes, it is true. They will never have a uterus or ovaries, never have a menstrual cycle, never pass on maternal genetic material, never have two X chromosomes, never be able to give birth, never have a female pelvis or skeletal system ( http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/see-the-skele tal-differences-between-women-and-men), never have a female brain structure ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.ht m)
There are so many differences they are too numerous to bother going into for this discussion.
No. A normative male cannot ever become a normative female. Nor vice-versa. They can become something closer to the opposite sex than they started. And they can become something they are more comfortable living as. That's the only real point of the procedure anyway.
--
Smokr,
Thank you! This is what I would have written word for word if I had been able to, but I was slightly led off topic by responding to Kitzyma (which is my fault not his/her). This is exactly what I mean and for those reasons (which are plenty as I can see) is why I believe Germain Greer said what she said. Upon reflection whether her statement was true or false, it was her opinion which is what I was trying to get across. It is rare I wade in to any kind of forum debate, as you'll see by the number of my posts but this one struck a nerve. Why? Because I am sick of living in a world where we are becoming to scared to speak our minds fearing the thought police.
But I think this comes down to a broader question on why as humans we put things into boxes. I am happy doing this (and I do do it) because it helps me understand the world and how I should react to certain situations. To stop me from going off topic I will start a new thread for your thoughts on this.... Is it ok negative about something "different" or is it Prejudice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That does take courage. Not everyone can do that. I couldn't. I don't want to, though.
To be frank and honest, I felt a scowl on my face and a my head was back on my neck.
"Gross" was my first thought. "Ugly" was my second. "Nasty" came next. Nearly nothing feminine about her, other than clothing and hair and makeup.
His/her lips are repulsive. The left eye keeps slipping shut and opening slowly. And hearing that voice from that body was nearly comic.
I guess he's happier as a she, but he was much better looking before. So long as he's happier though.
Do you really feel 'negative' about seeing/hearing him/her? Or are you having a bit of 'wtf' syndrome?
I don't think my reaction is negative, so much as discomfort. It's not what I'm used to. If I hung around with lots of transgendered and got used to hearing a baritone from a 'woman' I wouldn't have the same reaction to the video of Jenner now.
But then, I'd have much the same reaction to any actual woman who looked like and sounded like that.
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 21:50]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
I understand the feeling negative about something one is not used to seeing or hearing. I was perplexed every time I saw two men kiss, despite the fact that I wanted to do it so badly with the right man. I felt negative about it.
I have a cousin over six feet tall who was born a boy and is now a lady. I found it hard to reconcile my belief that she is female with a masculine voice and the fact that she drinks beer in pints in the pub.
Time has helped with both of these things.
I was not prejudiced against either of them, but I was perplexed and they each made me feel slightly uncomfortable. They do not now. I felt negative about seeing two men kiss, but not about my newly minted female cousin.
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 22:15]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote:"Smokr wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 21:32That does take courage. Not everyone can do that. I couldn't. I don't want to, though.
To be frank and honest, I felt a scowl on my face and a my head was back on my neck.
"Gross" was my first thought. "Ugly" was my second. "Nasty" came next. Nearly nothing feminine about her, other than clothing and hair and makeup.
His/her lips are repulsive. The left eye keeps slipping shut and opening slowly. And hearing that voice from that body was nearly comic.
I guess he's happier as a she, but he was much better looking before. So long as he's happier though.
Do you really feel 'negative' about seeing/hearing him/her? Or are you having a bit of 'wtf' syndrome?
I don't think my reaction is negative, so much as discomfort. It's not what I'm used to. If I hung around with lots of transgendered and got used to hearing a baritone from a 'woman' I wouldn't have the same reaction to the video of Jenner now.
But then, I'd have much the same reaction to any actual woman who looked like and sounded like that.
--
Perhaps Negative was the wrong word to use. I chose that word because since it did not evoke an emotion of pleasure and rather more of "wtf" as you describe it, I deemed it negative.
To your point about courage, yes indeed. Anyone who is the least bit different from the mainstream who is able to get up, regardless of what others think I guess does take courage. But I do go back to the words people use because to the woman who introduced her she used the word courageous and and stunning. Now if we could pause that moment in time and actually read the introducer's mind, would she be using those words because she genuinely believes Caitlyn Jenner is stunning and courageous, or is she saying them because she thinks that's the right thing to do?
It comes onto a broader question on why people use such words to describe people in certain situations. For example, I am always hearing either on TV or in real life how a Cancer sufferer is "Brave" or how a person in a wheelchair with no arms and legs is "inspirational."
I just don't get these words because they don't make sense. Stunning is not a word i'd use to describe a 6ft man in a dress thats slapped on a bit of Rimmel and donned a wig. And I would absolutely love to use the effects of the film "Liar Liar" to find out what each and every one of those people in the audience felt when he started talking, because I can tell ya... They sit there with their illogical words, straight faces and PC opinions and behind closed doors I bet you anything they are telling their partner..."Fuck me honey, you would not believe what happened tonight."
People should be able to feel uncomfortable about something in public if they genuinely are, AND they should be able to share that with other's like I am tonight on the Caitlyn Jenner example. Am I going to find a big drinks crate, stand up in the middle of Central London and tell the world what a freak Caitlyn Jenner is? No of course not, but I should not have to feel bad for voicing an opinion while others just come out with bullshit lies and smile because they are too scared to admit they are uncomfortable with something/someone.
And this is not just about some Transexual who got up on stage. In the UK you are not free to talk about Race, religion, immigration, terrorists, asylum seekers or anything that might upset someone because our country, or more important our Government has got their self in such a fucking paranoid state about things that NEED to be discussed that people live in fear talking about anything. And this is just how Nazi Germany started.
Oppression is bad for the soul, it creates tension. People need to be honest about what they feel, they need to have their voice heard. Free democracy was founded by the very principle that the people had a free voice. Where the hell are we going?
Wow... I almost deleted this!
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 22:34] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
WestcliffWriter,
Firstly:
"If I were to go into the street and start hurling abuse or physically attacking a person for the way they look or wish to be, then granted that would make me prejudice, but since all I have done is express an opinion that is different from yours I do not see how that makes me a bad person."
I've already said that I fully support your right to express your opinion. I'm very much against 'political correctness' and believe that free speech should be limited only in very exceptional circumstances (e.g. encouraging people to kill other people). If people don't say what they really believe then how can we argue an opposing view?
Just because I believe that your views on this topic are misguided doesn't mean that I think you're a bad person. If I've said anything that indicates that I think you're a bad person then it wasn't deliberate and I'm very sorry. No doubt I, too, have some prejudices which offend some people, and I don't think that makes me a bad person.
It's not clear to me from your posts whether or not you believe that a transgendered person is just someone who feels they'd be happier as the opposite sex and so chooses to undergo surgery. That would be just the same as saying that being gay is a lifestyle choice, and it's simply not true.
There are physical and functional differences between male and female brains. There are studies indicating that transgender people tend to have brain characteristics that have much in common with those of the opposite sex. Some of the research is summarised here:
<http://transascity.org/the-transgender-brain/>
So they have genitals of one gender but brains and feelings like the opposite gender, and that mismatch makes them genuinely unhappy. Perhaps that might be considered an illness, just as homosexuality has been considered an illness (and in many parts of the world it still is). However, even if it were an illness, should they be treated with disdain or ridicule?
Bearing in mind how badly treated gay people have been until relatively recently in the UK and how they are still persecuted in many coutries, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay as a 'lifestyle choice'? Similarly, bearing in mind the attitudes of society to transgendered people, the pain and difficulty of operations, and the fact that post-op transgendered people are rarely physically convincing, why on earth would they choose to go through all that just for a lifestyle choice?
For example, an M2F person is happier as an unattractive woman than an average man. Isn't that much more than just a lifestyle choice because they are dissatisfied with their genitals? So, imagine that this M2F person has braved the attitudes of society, the pain of multiple ops, and the not particularly attractive result, then hears someone on TV scornfully saying they are not a real woman'. Won't that hurt even more than a gay man being told he's not a real man?
Now to address your first point: I'm trying to convince people who might read this with an open mind that you are wrong. From what you've written, I honestly don't think that I could convince you on this topic because it seems to me from your posts that your view is already fixed.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that my view is right because I'm not sure it is, and I'm willing to change my view in response to logical and factual arguments. However, one doesn't have to believe one is right to be able to tell when someone is wrong. e.g. one doesn't need to know how babies are really made to realise that they are not brought by storks. 
"I base my opinion on how something looks and makes me view it."
Well, if people believe just what they see then of course it's obvious to anyone who can see that the sun moves around the Earth. If I just believed my eyes, I, too, would think that. It's only scientific observations that have shown this apparently obvious fact to be untrue.
Also, many psychological studies have shown that people tend to see what they expect to see.
Similarly, it's obvious to anyone who believes in a certain book that a little more than 4,000 years ago the world was created in just 6 days. Someone with an open mind would look at the evidence and assess it logically.
"Why do I have the opinion I do regarding Transexual people? Because the vast majority look hideous and unnatural."
So any woman who you find hideous and unnatural is to be condemned as not a real woman? What about those women who undergo cosmetic surgery that goes wrong, so they end up looking hideous are they no longer women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:timmy wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 22:14I understand the feeling negative about something one is not used to seeing or hearing. I was perplexed every time I saw two men kiss, despite the fact that I wanted to do it so badly with the right man. I felt negative about it.
I have a cousin over six feet tall who was born a boy and is now a lady. I found it hard to reconcile my belief that she is female with a masculine voice and the fact that she drinks beer in pints in the pub.
Time has helped with both of these things.
I was not prejudiced against either of them, but I was perplexed and they each made me feel slightly uncomfortable. They do not now. I felt negative about seeing two men kiss, but not about my newly minted female cousin.
--
I still feel like that Timmy (regarding the two men kissing in public.) Strange since I am gay man. It does not provoke a feeling of Yuk, I just feel embarrassed for them in front of other people. We have come a long way in terms of acceptance but in terms of whether society with ever be 100% comfortable with same sex relationships remains to be seen. I have been with my partner for 12 years and we have never once been affectionate towards one another in public. I personally don't feel like I have been short changed by that because we show our love behind closed doors. But the wider point is, why does anyone feel the need to show there affection in front of other people whether gay or straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you didn't delete it. Well put.
A frequently used Americanism just a few years ago was "I might not agree with your opinion, but I'll fight to the death your right to express it."
Now that phrase is considered offensive. Now we all supposedly have to agree with everything anyone else says, or be completely offended by it. We seemingly aren't allowed our own opinions and now must comply with whatever we are told is the 'right' opinion.
It is considered offensive that I don't see Kaitlin Jenner as a role model now, the way I was once supposed to when he was a male athlete. Piss off world.
Which Jenner am I supposed to idealize? I can't be both a successful male athlete and a woman. I can be a successful female athlete, but not also a male. Jenner once was a successful male athlete, but no longer is and never can be again.
How about if I don't worship either one?
I am not impressed with Kaitlin Jenner. I miss Bruce. He was virile, cute, and successful. He could have been my lover/sub/bottom/fuck-toy any time. Kaitlin is not at all attractive to me.
If I knew Bruce personally and considered him a friend I would no longer be attracted to him as a her. I would still consider him a friend, and he would have to get used to my jokes about dropped hotdogs, lost sausages, and spilled bags of marbles. He could always tell me to stop them, and I would. I'd also shake my head at him any time he brought up womens' rights or topics as if he were a woman. He's not a woman. He's a man living as a woman.
I don't want to get into if he qualifies for womens' rights and protections. What a can of worms that is. Will his/her royalties and income now be reduced by 2-5%? Is he/she protected/affected by employment quotas? Does his/her employer consider him/her a female or a male employee? What sex does he/she check off on government forms now?
I think it is normal and just fine to feel uncomfortable seeing/hearing Jenner now. Especially at first. In time, it will be less shocking and strange. We'll get used to it. We're adaptable. Sometimes too adaptable.
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 23:18]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote:""Why do I have the opinion I do regarding Transexual people? Because the vast majority look hideous and unnatural."
So any woman who you find hideous and unnatural is to be condemned as not a real woman? What about those women who undergo cosmetic surgery that goes wrong, so they end up looking hideous are they no longer women?
Where does that come from? The outward result is irrelevant. How one looks is irrelevant.
I can't see Jenner's pelvis, rib structure, or determine respiratory or circulatory statistics. I can't see his genitalia or lack thereof. What we can see is irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, some women are hideous, but they are real and actual women. Well, maybe...
"Quote:"For example, an M2F person is happier as an unattractive woman than an average man. Isn't that much more than just a lifestyle choice because they are dissatisfied with their genitals? So, imagine that this M2F person has braved the attitudes of society, the pain of multiple ops, and the not particularly attractive result, then hears someone on TV scornfully saying they are not a real woman'. Won't that hurt even more than a gay man being told he's not a real man?
Saying a gay man is not a real man is simplifying the definition of a 'real man' to one thing - they have sex with women. No other criteria at all. Just the one. That is purely pathetic.
Saying being transgender is a lifestyle choice is as facetious as saying being gay is a lifestyle choice. Transgendered simply aren't wired/created/constructed as the sex they are born. Just as gays/lesbians aren't wired/created/constructed to desire the opposite sex. It's not a choice. It's a choice to sleep with one's one sex, yes... or you can live life completely celibate instead... or choose to sleep with the opposite sex instead. It's not a choice of which you prefer or desire. The basis of your sexuality is no choice. Nether is the basis of your sexual identity.
A transgendered is not a 'real or actual' member of the opposite sex. Never can be. Period. Not unless you loosen the definition of the opposite sex intentionally to include them.
If Bruce Jenner wants to be called Kaitlin and be treated as a woman, fine. I will. I will open a door for her, call him her, and say ma'am to him. I will call him Miss Jenner. He can use the womens' restrooms instead of the mens'. If he joins a club, he will use the womens' lockeroom and not the mens'. He will now have a womans' handicap on the golf course. If I had him on my Christmas list, I would now send him a nice basket of flowers instead of assorted meats and cheeses. If he wants to be a woman, I'll let him be as much a woman as he wants, and I'll treat as much like a woman as possible.
But he is not and never will be a real woman. Big deal. Not. At this point, the differences are almost entirely internal, and where they really don't matter to those of us who interact with him/her.
He's a rather ugly woman though. Facially, anyway. His body looks very feminine and probably very attractive to most males. If they only saw his body they'd probably jump on it. With is money, I'm sure some more plasticc surgery is possible, and he may end up looking very feminine and attractive to most males.
Do whatever you want, Bruce/Kaitlin. It's your body and your life. Just don't expect me to change basic biological facts. You're not a real woman, and will never be. But you can live as one and expect to be treated as one. I don't mind or hold it against you. Go for it.
[Updated on: Sun, 25 October 2015 23:55]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
"Is this topic about gender, sexuality, or physical norms?"
Well, most of what I've tried to express is about gender, but that can't avoid being compared with how society has treated sexuality that is outside what it regards as 'norms'.
"I thought it was a question about whether a transgender can become a true and actual member of the opposite sex."
I thought it was about whether a M2F post op person can be regarded as a 'real woman'. Thus it seems to me that much of our disagreement is probably semantic - i.e. it lies in how one defines 'real woman' in terms of being a 'true and actual member of the opposite sex'.
The use of 'normative' (ie. derived from a standard or norm) in the post is interesting because it begs the questions: who decides what is the standard and what makes it valid. Bearing in mind that gay sex is not considered to be the norm, should we (as gay people) give any weight to the word 'normative'.
Basically, it boils down to how many of the total female characteristics does the person have to have to qualify as a 'real woman'? Here are some of those mentioned: muscle mass and distribution; differences in skeletal structure; endocrine system; circulatory system; respiratory system; skin; and (obviously) genitalia!
As mentioned in an earlier post, many of those differences are in population averages, and so not really a determining point for an individual. Some men have androgynous facial features and yet are 'real men'. Some women have stronger muscles and skeletons than an average man and yet are 'real women'. Some women (esp in parts of Asia) have more facial hair growth than some men in other parts of Asia who have very little body hair.
Overall, if you look at the spread of physical characteristics in both males and females, there are many characteristics that overlap so much that it would be impossible to look at just those characteristics in one individual and decide only from them whether that individual was male or female.
Genitalia and breasts are the most obvious differences, but these can be modified by surgery.
Some men and women are born with defective or almost-absent genitals - are they not real men and women? Is a eunuch a man?
If it's psychological differences, again there is a spread of characteristics within the populations of male and female. To take a trivial example: I hate shopping, but a straight male friend likes shipping. On average, women may be more empathic, but I've met some very non-empathic women.
Is a gay man who has no attraction at all to women a real man? There are some very effeminate who are totally heterosexual - are they real men?
Endocrine and chromosome tests may be regarded as definitive, but levels of various endocrines can be altered by removal of testes or ovaries and replacement with relevant hormones. As mentioned at length in an earlier post, chromosomes might be a good test for sports purposes, but DNA is no longer regarded as a total determining factor for many traits.
One of the things mentioned in your post as differentiating males and females is brain structure and function. The link quoted gives only part of the information we have. Research indicates that many of those who feel they are in the body of the opposite gender actually have brains that have similarities with those of the gender they feel,they really are. So if someone has a female-type brain in a male body, are they a man or a woman?
If your brain were to be transplanted into a female body, would you be a man or a woman? Of course it's not yet possible, but it might be someday, so considering this might help to get a grip on what exactly we mean when discuss gender.
"If you define a 'real woman' simply as someone who wears dresses and high heels, than there are a lot of very hairy 'real women' with rather large bulges in the front of their pantyhose."
No one has mentioned dresses and shoes in this thread, as far as I know. So presumably this is just an attempt at humour, because otherwise it indicates an ignorance of the difference between a transvestite and a transgendered person.
Perhaps one aspect of this discussion has disturbed me most is the idea that a M2F post-op person can't be a real woman because she is often physically unconvincing, may be ugly and sometimes even 'hideous'. There are some real, natural women who have heavy features, masculine-type jaws, etc. Some women have deformed faces or bodies, either as a result of birth defects or accidents. Are they not real women simply because they are considered to be unattractive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does all come down to semantics. What is a 'real woman'?
What does 'real' mean in this context?
What does 'woman' mean in this context?
What does a 'real woman' mean?
I'll go to the very basis of the question and the generality. "Real" means entirely, and "Woman" means female in biological terms. Psychology is irrelevant.
A 'real woman' is one who is born female after being a female embryo, and who remains as originally equipped.
Nothing else can be considered a 'real woman'. Not how she acts or looks or dresses.
That female may cut their hair short or go bald, as well as grow muscles that make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Pee-Wee Herman, and wear nothing but mens' jeans and t-shirts. She is still a 'real woman'. She may not look like one, or act like one, but she is.
If she takes hormone therapy to become more male-like and has her female biology altered, she is no longer a real woman. She is now losing female characteristics and taking on male ones.
She is no longer a real woman. She is not and never will be a real male.
She is mostly a woman, but not entirely.
She is partly a man, but not entirely.
She is something between. Society hates things that can't be cleanly labeled and categorized. I believe we've had that discussion here before. Society has to have clear lines and boxes. It is stupid and simplistic, but true.
Kaitlin Jenner is not a real woman, nor is he/she a real man. Kaitlin Jenner is more man than woman, and likely always will be. But he/she can be and act any way he/she wants, and we should treat he/she as how he/she wants to be treated.
If he/she wants to be called a woman and treated like a woman, fine. We should. But he/she cannot ever be called a real woman. Or, now, even a real man. He was a male, but is now not entirely, or 'really'. And he/she doesn't want to be.
This question is not about digital bits that are either on or off. There is no '1' or '0' conflict here. Perhaps we are into quantum realms, where the bit is neither on nor off, but in an indeterminate state until observed, and then affected by the observation itself.
We've probably all seen images online of those with both a penis and a vagina. Neither is 'normative' or 'usual' or 'as one would expect'. The penis and vagina are in varying stages of vestigal existence.
Some of these folks look female, some have breasts, some have chest hair, some have testes in various forms or stages, some lack even any sign of a scrotum. They are in stages between, not either entirely one way or the other. As far as I know, no one has ever had both fully functional sex organs, and no one has ever been born without any of either set at all. There are degrees and variations.
Transgenders are much the same. Some only take hormones and do nothing else. Some do as much as medically possible. None are 'really male' or 'really female' any longer. They don't want to be. They aren't and never will be. It can even be argued that once one begins the hormone therapy they can never go back to being entirely male/female ever again.
And my comment about large bulges in pantyhose was not meant to refer to cross-dressing. I was referring to pre-operative transgenders, some or many of which never get the 'full monty' and stop with hormone treatments. They want to be more womanly, but not lose their genitals. They want to live as a woman, but not 'be' a woman. Again, there are degrees and shades, it's just not zeros or ones.
And again, the looks are irrelevant! I do not use appearances in any of my arguments/points, other than to point out that we don't need to see genitals to determine sex. I refer to genetics and physical attributes. Not how pretty or ugly. The ugliest woman in the world is likely a 'real woman'. (begin_mode:facetiousness) At least, no one has come forward to claim to know Hilary as a man before. (end_mode:facetiousness)
There are some men who make very convincing and realistic looking women in drag. Are they 'real women'? Hell no. Not even close. Still fully equipped and functioning males. They don't want to have their parts removed, and they don't want to be treated as a woman. Though (again, degrees) some do want to be treated as a woman when in drag. Some are heterosexual and have never touched another male. Some have never touched a woman and never want to. Degrees of difference.
"Real" does not allow for degrees of difference. It is an absolute term. Something is 'really' this or that, not partially, not somewhat, not kind of. Really. For real. Entirely. Absolutely.
"Woman" is having female sexual characteristics and traits. It is not an absolute, but it is nearly so. Nearly, not really. Almost, not quite. Females can have facial hair, strong muscles and bones, and large feet and hands. They are still entirely really female, and a 'real woman'. Degrees.
There are those between, who are neither. Either born that way or altered to be that way. Or they are both male and female, if you prefer to look at it that way. But how we look at things doesn't change their true nature. Not unless we're going to dive into quantum realms again, which I suspect is entirely fictional and only 'works' because we don't understand all we think we do.
But Kaitlin Jenner is not absolutely and entirely female. He lacks most female characteristics and the most flagrant deciding factors of all, genetic makeup and markers. His body was created as, and developed as, a male, and existed entirely as male for decades, until altered medically and with chemicals.
His brain is another matter, but even then, that is only part of the issue.
No, Kaitlin Jenner is not a 'real woman'. But does it even matter? He can now live as one, which is all he's asking to do. I very much doubt any of his doctors ever told him... "Sure, we can turn you into a real woman!" And I very much doubt he ever thought he was going to become a 'real woman'. He just wants to live as one because he feels more comfortable as one.
He'd probably laugh at us for having this discussion and call us idiots.
I can almost hear him saying, "I don't want to be a 'real woman'! I just want to be a woman. Real or not. I'm not comfortable with a penis and testicles. I don't feel like a man, and I'm tired of pretending I am a man. I want to be more delicate and more sensitive, and to look a certain way that isn't male. I want to wear dresses, fashion my hair, and wear stunningly red fingernail polish. I want to sit with my legs gently crossed and complain about men belching like animals. I want to be able to let my wrists flop in a way I feel comfortable and not feel self-conscious about it. I want to stand at a podium with my hands held effimately and wear a tight, fabulous white dress. I want to wear jewelry and ear-rings and accessorize. I want to walk with a sway in my hips and a purse on my arm. I want to be womanly."
Well, he's got it, and I hope he's happy with it. Do what you want Kaitlin. 'Real woman' or not, you go girl.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to watch "Walking Dead," with one of the most awesome women on television, Danai Gurira who plays Michonne, a 'real woman', even if she never wears feminine clothing, nail polish, or even acts feminine. In fact, she acts more masculine than many men. Even if she is tougher, more rugged, smarter, more courageous, and more capable than many men, she is a 'real woman' in all aspects. Those personality traits are independent of sex in my opinion, and don't make her any less of a 'real woman.'
[Updated on: Mon, 26 October 2015 01:41]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
I agree that it's better to allow people to be offended than to prevent someone from saying something that will offend those people.
Not only is it important to keep to the principle of freedom of speech, but there are also other reasons. e.g. If they don't express there beliefs, how can you argue against them, and if they are forced to suppress what they say, the frustration may lead them to expressing themselves in a different, perhaps violent, way.
The thing that makes me feel most uncomfortable about the Jenner case is the adulation that seems fueled more by political correctness than anything else. BTW - did anyone watch the recent South Park episode in which they really took the piss out of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
Quote:WestcliffWriter wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 23:02
"Quote:"timmy wrote on Sun, 25 October 2015 22:14I understand the feeling negative about something one is not used to seeing or hearing. I was perplexed every time I saw two men kiss, despite the fact that I wanted to do it so badly with the right man. I felt negative about it.
I have a cousin over six feet tall who was born a boy and is now a lady. I found it hard to reconcile my belief that she is female with a masculine voice and the fact that she drinks beer in pints in the pub.
Time has helped with both of these things.
I was not prejudiced against either of them, but I was perplexed and they each made me feel slightly uncomfortable. They do not now. I felt negative about seeing two men kiss, but not about my newly minted female cousin.
--
I still feel like that Timmy (regarding the two men kissing in public.) Strange since I am gay man. It does not provoke a feeling of Yuk, I just feel embarrassed for them in front of other people. We have come a long way in terms of acceptance but in terms of whether society with ever be 100% comfortable with same sex relationships remains to be seen. I have been with my partner for 12 years and we have never once been affectionate towards one another in public. I personally don't feel like I have been short changed by that because we show our love behind closed doors. But the wider point is, why does anyone feel the need to show there affection in front of other people whether gay or straight.
--
I think there is a difference between a peck on the lips or cheek and being all over one another like a rash. Even so, I was perplexed by two men pecking. I am repulsed by public snogging in any pairing of sexes. I wondered, once, if this was envy, but it is repulsion.
I wish you and your partner felt able to kiss in public in comfort. That is the equality I seek in addition to full legal equality.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Thanks for the succinct definitions and clarification here.
Now it becomes clear where the basic divergence occurs.
As is often the case in such discussions, it all boils down to definitions and semantics.
The definitions are perfectly valid, but are too rigid and black-or-white for me to adopt. So, having exchanged thoughts and now knowing the source of disagreement, I think that for me the discussion has reached a satisfactory conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. But will you answer a hypothetical?
Joe and Jane are nearly identical twins except for sex. Exceedingly rare, but it happens. They are both homosexual. It's a hypothetical, remember.
They are on operating tables next to each other.
Their skins (including all hair and body hair intact) are carefully removed, then grafted entirely onto the other. Genitals are removed from both and discarded.
(Because they cannot be made to function and would cause rejection and death-that is still too complicated and impossible in our hypothetical to match todays quandary. Grafting skin is successful even today if donor and patient are compatible. Organs are a bit more complicated, especially sexual organs. So in this hypothetical we can transplant skin and the hair on it, but not sexual organs.)
They heal and recover entirely.
Is Joe now female and Jane male? Is Joe now a 'real woman' and is Jane now a 'real man'? Should they now be called Jane and Joe instead?
This hypothetical fits entirely the argument in this topic. All outward appearances are altered entirely, but no internal construction (other than loss of genitals) or genetic material is changed at all. Joe now looks exactly like Jane did and vice-versa, and both are happy with their new appearances. Neither is sexually functional for procreation, just as today's transgendered.
I will offer no counter-argument or opinion, I just would like to know your stance more clearly on the topic. What makes a 'real woman' or a 'real man' in you opinion?
Please refrain from (though I don't expect from you) crap like "real men play sports" and "real women have tea parties."
If you believe Kaitlin Jenner is a 'real woman' than what constitutes a 'real woman' in your opinion? It is clearly very much more relaxed than my own possibly overly-stringent definition. But I can't help that. It's my definition of a 'real woman', as in 'actual/factual female'.
[Updated on: Mon, 26 October 2015 01:38]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Okay, the hypothetical is a bit complicated, but if I understand it correctly then in my view Joe is as much a real man as he was before the operations and Jane is as much a real woman as she was before.
This is because (in my view) both gender and sexuality are much more than just physical characteristics. They are part of a person's identity and their sense of being who they are. Just as being a gay man is more than just about who one finds attractive or the sexual acts one performs, so being a man or a woman is more that genitalia and other physical attributes. No doubt some (many?) people will disagree with that view.
The simple biological definitions of man and woman that you (and probably most people) adhere to have the big advantage of being straightforward and easy to understand. So, by application of Occam's Razor, maybe those definitions are 'correct'. However, sometimes real human life isn't simple. Although I haven't yet formulated my own succinct definitions, I think that there is more to the feeling of identity of a man or a woman than exists just within the definitions of 'human male' or 'human female'.
My sense of self-identity includes the fact that I'm a man and that I'm gay, and I'm very happy and comfortable in that identity. If a 'cure' for homosexuality was created that was quick, free and totally without pain or discomfort then I wouldn't take it. (This begs the question: is being homosexual exactly the same as identifying being gay, but that question is not relevant here.)
There are advantages and disadvantages to being a man as opposed to a woman, just as there are advantages and disadvantages to being homosexual or heterosexual. However, one doesn't weigh up the pros and cons and choose a gender or a sexuality. I think that the basis for the eventual self-identity is laid during development in the womb and then that basic clay is later molded by life experience. No matter what the eventual shape, the basic make-up of the clay will remain the same.
If my brain was put into a female body, my self-identity would still include being a man and being gay. I'd almost certainly be very unhappy, and not just because I no longer had a penis to play with. If some magic wand could be waved to change my sense of self-identity then I wouldn't want it, because the old me would have to die in the creation of a new me.
The importance to me of my self-identity is such that if some treatment could totally eradicate all my unhappy or unpleasant memories, I would not take that treatment because those memories are part of who I am. The person without those memories would not be the 'me' I am now, and the 'me' I am now would be dead. Yes, of course personality and identity can change over time, but that is a relatively slow evolutionary change. Having unpleasant memories removed or having a treatment to change sexuality would not be such an evolutionary change, it would be the killing of part of my identity.
To summarise, therefore, it all comes down to definitions and semantics. According to my own definitions, I believe that:
being male or female is probably solely or primarily decided by biological physical attributes;
being a man or a woman also involves self-identity and a sense of who one is as a unique 'person';
in determining if a person is a man or woman, self identity is at least as important as biological attributes;
self-identity makes me who I am, and any drastic rapid change would be a death of 'me-ness';
if unhappiness is caused by self-identity conflicting with physical attributes, it's better to change the physical attributes than trying to change the self-identity, because even if it succeeds, such a drastic change in 'me-ness' would effectively 'kill' the person who previously existed in order to create a new person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what he says or what he thinks, at the end of the day he is a male.
Sorry but, this is nothing but hype and BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
Quote:Ashdaw wrote on Mon, 26 October 2015 14:34No matter what he says or what he thinks, at the end of the day he is a male.
Sorry but, this is nothing but hype and BS.
--
That seems somewhat harsh, even intolerant.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caitlyn Jenner Named 'Woman Of The Year'Glamour magazine named Caitlyn Jenner its "Woman of the Year" on Wednesday.
The last sentence cracked me up!
[Updated on: Tue, 27 October 2015 04:09]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Reading the posts in this topic triggered one of my favourite hobbies - navel-gazing. So I asked myself some questions.
Q. Do I feel uncomfortable when I see (or even just hear about) a post op M2F transgender person?
A. Yes, but I don't feel anything like as negative about it as some who've posted here apparently do. On the other hand, I do feel more negative in the particular case of Caitlin Jenner. That is probably because of the publicity, hype and BS that has surrounded it. The 'Woman of the Year' award strikes me as being stupid, extreme PC, and a bit insulting to women. This insult not because I think he's not a real woman, but because there must be lots of women who really deserve it. Although I'm not sure of the criteria used for the award, I don't think he did do anything to deserve it. Surely, transitioning M2F surely can't be one of the criteria!
(BTW - If anyone can get to see the South Park episode on this, I urge them to do so.)
Q. Do I feel more or less uncomfortable with the idea of post-op F2M transgender person?
A. Less. In fact, I don't feel at all uncomfortable about F2M. It seems strange to me, but maybe not so weird as people who don't like chocolate.
Q. Is this difference in my feelings between M2F and F2M related to the fact that I'm a) male, b) gay, and c) happy to be male?
A. This is hard to answer because I've no experience of being female, straight, or unhappy with my gender. However, here are some thoughts:
1) Because I'm male and happy to be so, maybe it's easier for me to imagine why a woman would want be a man rather than why a man would want to be a woman. After all, why would any man want to give up his penis?
2) I'm gay and have always been fascinated by dicks, not just my own, long before I had any idea what sex or sexuality were. Perhaps because I've never been physically attracted to a woman, the end result of an F2M transition might be attractive, but even an extremely successful M2F transition would not be.
Q. Setting aside my distaste for the particular Jenner case, should I be sympathetic toward the 'ordinary' M2F person who just gets on with her life without courting publicity?
A. Yes, I should.
This was brought home to me when I disregarded any theoretical or hypothetical considerations or definitions applied to others and tried to imagine myself trapped in a body that felt 'wrong' for me. I imagined waking up one morning in the body of a beautiful woman whom most straight men would find extremely attractive. Of course, I could probably experience lots of cocks, but for me that wouldn't be anything like enough compensation for the fact that the 'real me', the person that was myself, was still male.
This is not because I think women are inferior or because I have any distaste for the female body, but it was because being male is an integral part of the essence of who I am.
I know that I'd be very unhappy in that female body and would do virtually anything to get a male body again. Indeed, the more I imaged that situation, the more I realised that I'd much rather be in an ugly male body than a beautiful female body. Whether I'd have the strength and determination to go through the operations, though, I'm not so sure.
Of course, having one's brain transplanted is not the same as being born with a male brain in a female body, or vice-versa. So I suppose that, faced with the prospect of coming out as transgender, plus pain of surgery, etc, I might be more likely to resign myself to the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Timmy, it's how I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
Quote:Ashdaw wrote on Tue, 27 October 2015 12:59Well Timmy, it's how I see it.
--
Indeed it is. But is it a useful way to see it, both for you and for them?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've sort of steered clear of this topic and its' predecessor simply because I'm uncomfortable about the whole damn thing.
Forty years ago I was weirded-out by the whole "Scrag Drag" phenomenon when it first reared its' ugly head, and each and every time and decade since, most recently being the whole Conchita Wurst (née Thomas Neuwirth) controversy and 2014's Eurovision contest.
Unfortunately new science seems to be on the side of the angels in documenting discoveries related to fetal growth and gender, it now being apparent that gender is likely amongst the very last traits to be adopted by the evolving fetus along with hair- and eye-colour giving considerable credibility to claimants who feel they've gotten a bum deal in the gender sweepstakes and want to change.
I can't recall at what point, or how early, in fetal development gender is ultimately assigned; but, from the cursory examination (I wasn't that interested to really pay attention) of the article I stumbled across I gathered that the fetus was fairly well along. Perhaps one of our Members here who is totally down with this whole thing could look into it and give a "Fetal Gender Assignment 101" primer.
The aforementioned aside, are transgender individuals who have fully transitioned what they then claim to be? I'm one of those "whatever floats your boat within reason kind of fellow", so why not? They've gone through a whole lot of angst, heartbreak and misery to get where they have arrived. Provided they could pass the ultimate for me, acid-test, this being their standing before me absolutely bare-assed naked in a well-lit bedroom, or any room for that matter, seeing if I can discern any difference I say go for it. That abomination Ms Jenner is not a good example; Calpurnia Sarah Adams might be a better one, and I'm sure there have be countless others over the years whom we've all encountered after one fashion or another and never knew they were transitioned, or transitioning, at all.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
[Updated on: Wed, 28 October 2015 02:21]
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13772
|
|
|
"The Gay Deceiver wrote on Tue, 27 October 2015 14:48"I've sort of steered clear of this topic and its' predecessor simply because I'm uncomfortable about the whole damn thing.
Forty years ago I was weirded-out by the whole "Scrag Drag" phenomenon when it first reared its' ugly head, and each and every time and decade since, most recently being the whole Conchita Wurst (née Thomas Neuwirth) controversy and 2014's Eurovision contest.
Unfortunately new science seems to be on the side of the angels in documenting discoveries related to fetal growth and gender, it now being apparent that gender is likely amongst the very last traits to be adopted by the evolving fetus along with hair- and eye-colour giving considerable credibility to claimants who feel they've gotten a bum deal in the gender sweepstakes and want to change.
I can't recall at what point, or how early, in fetal development gender is ultimately assigned; but, from the cursory examination (I wasn't that interested to really pay attention) of the article I stumbled across I gathered that the fetus was fairly well along. Perhaps one of our Members here who is totally down with this whole thing could look into it and give a "Fetal Gender Assignment 101" primer.
The aforementioned aside, are transgender individuals who have fully transitioned what they then claim to be? I'm one of those "whatever floats your boat within reason kind of fellow", so why not? They've gone through a whole lot of angst, heartbreak and misery to get where they have arrived. Provided they could pass the ultimate for me, acid-test, this being their standing before me absolutely bare-assed naked in a well-lit bedroom , or any room for that matter, seeing if I can discern any difference I say go for it. That abomination Ms Jenner is not a good example; Calpurnia Sarah Adams might be a better one, and I'm sure there have be countless others over the years whom we've all encountered after one fashion or another and never knew they were transitioned, or transitioning, at all.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
--
It's strange how we split the thread into two in order to allow both the specific and the generic discussions to proceed, but have slammed back to the specific.
I am not sure I care about the well lit bedroom test.
My cousin is most assuredly a woman. She is not a caricature of a woman, she lives as a woman, appears as a woman, acts as a woman (with the exception of drinking pints in a pub), cannot help her broken masculine voice since she went through puberty as a boy, and cannot help being very tall with enormous shoe size. She could not acquire breasts save by surgery.
Now here's the thing. She enjoys sex. She does not want to risk never enjoying sex again, as some post operative M2F folk have reported, so she has kept her male genitalia and shows no sign of wishing to change that. She will fail your well lit bedroom test.
She and I have talked about this. That is how I know. When she was a boy I was very attracted to him. He was gorgeous. As a woman I do not find her at all attractive, despite her possessing the apparatus I prefer, and having the same face. Breasts I can see past! This is interesting, at least to me.
She is a father. The plumbing works. She enjoys sex more with women than with men. She has no vagina. Does that make her homosexual or heterosexual, or bisexual? She has no idea. She is just herself, with the same hopes and fears as the rest of us ordinary folk.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
