Transgenders: Change their sex?

[maxham]

Comrades, I've got some serious question & arguments about transgendered people: They're people who act (& even physically appear) like their opposite sex. There's MTF & FTM.

Mainly, they take various therapies &/or surgeries. They tend to be stealthy in the general society. For an example: MTF issues. Do comrades regard the MTFs as female or male? Or, in the FTM case: do you regard them as male (as their physical appearance resembles more to men than women) or female?

In my personal point of view, MTFs should be regarded as men & FTMs as females (but I'm not AGAINST transgender/transsexualism). Why?

Until today, sex change is effectively impossible. People are determined their sexes from their genitalia & their sex chromosome. Both of these are unchangeable, according to most medical experts. Although some transgenders had underdone castration, their sex chromosome shall determine their sex. XY is male & XX is female, no matter how does the body appearance looks like...


What do you comrades think?

[bellyscratch]

People should be entitled to be called whatever gender they feel they like. Everyone has the right to label themselves with whatever title they feel comfortable with, and I don't think its that important enough of an issue for us to tell them whether they have to be called male or female.

[The Red]

MtF are Females

FtM are Males

Thay should be whatever gender they choose to be.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Comrades, I've got some serious question & arguments about transgendered people: They're people who act (& even physically appear) like their opposite sex. There's MTF & FTM.

Mainly, they take various therapies &/or surgeries. They tend to be stealthy in the general society. For an example: MTF issues. Do comrades regard the MTFs as female or male? Or, in the FTM case: do you regard them as male (as their physical appearance resembles more to men than women) or female?

In my personal point of view, MTFs should be regarded as men & FTMs as females (but I'm not AGAINST transgender/transsexualism). Why?

Until today, sex change is effectively impossible. People are determined their sexes from their genitalia & their sex chromosome. Both of these are unchangeable, according to most medical experts.
Lolwut. I think you'll find that genitalia are changeable.

Although some transgenders had underdone castration, their sex chromosome shall determine their sex. XY is male & XX is female, no matter how does the body appearance looks like...

What do you comrades think?

"Gender isn't a dichotomy," I say. "Sometimes a baby's born and it's a boy, and sometimes it's a girl, sure, but sometimes a doctor is in the background behind one of those pull-around curtains, flipping a coin. Sometimes the mother says "Is it a boy or a girl?" and the doctor really does say "Yes." That isn't the punchline to a joke, Mrs. Hubert, it's the punchline to the whole misguided notion that the concept of boy or the concept of girl are anything more than constructions."
In the long run, I want to see a society where gender roles are abolished, so the concept of men and women as we understand them today would be irrelevant. In the short term, people can choose whatever social construct they feel like. Regardless of what their sex is, gender is not biologically determined, and so if a person identifies as male or female, then they should be treated as male or female.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Transgenders are people with the right to determine their own identity. That being said, the concept confuses me greatly. In fact, the concept of sexuality confuses me.

If I find a man dressed as a women attractive, am I gay?
If I find a women dressed as a man attractive, am I gay?
Are we attracted to sexuality or gender?

I know all this doesn't "matter," but at some level, facts matter. They are simple curiosities. Sometimes we want to know irrelevant facts.

A man calls himself a women because he dresses as a women. Fine? Well does the man he is dating have a right to be upset if he finds the gentiles are different? A Simpson's episode (awesome source of scientific knowledge, I know) had a women dating a man who pretended to be a women. When she found out, she dumped him claiming she was a lesbian.

If someone changes their genitals is that enough? I don't know! I don't know why society is so caught up on these things.

I'll find who I find attractive attractive. If they happen to be male, it's alright. However, I happen to find women attractive. If it turned out they were actually a man, should I change my mind? Is it legitimate to do so? I'm not sure it is or it isn't.

[Lynx]

XY is male & XX is female, no matter how does the body appearance looks like...
Usually, but not always. For example, Swyer syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome)

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I say no changing sexes just because I'm against cosmetic surgeries.If you put to much into physical it usualy leads to capitalist ideals.

[Pogue]

I say no changing sexes just because I'm against cosmetic surgeries.If you put to much into physical it usualy leads to capitalist ideals.

huh?

[khad]

I say no changing sexes just because I'm against cosmetic surgeries.If you put to much into physical it usualy leads to capitalist ideals.
People here don't get the difference between gender, which is socially constructed, and sex, which is biological.

If people were free to perform whatever gender roles suited their desires, there would be little need for sex change surgeries.

[StalinFanboy]

Why do people need to be classified as man or woman?


I say no changing sexes just because I'm against cosmetic surgeries.If you put to much into physical it usualy leads to capitalist ideals.
Tool.

[Kassad]

I say no changing sexes just because I'm against cosmetic surgeries.If you put to much into physical it usualy leads to capitalist ideals.

Not only is this complete horseshit, but it's totally unscientific. Physical and material aspects of society will always influence society. It is by ignoring physical oppression of women, workers and just about every other physical aspect of society that you promote ignorance towards them. That's Marx for you. Try reading it some time.

Who woke up in the morning and decided that they can decree that their view of sexual classification is correct. If someone wants to declare a different aspect of their gender, it is nothing short of oppressive to say that they can't. I was going to say that your post was borderline sexist, but no. It is blatant sexism of the highest degree. It's the equivalent of saying that homosexuals put too much thought into their physical conditions by trying to promote equality. Try again.

[Kassad]

There was a documentary on UK tv ages ago about the youngest ever transexual in the country called 'lucy' who harboured female gender identification since the age of 8. I think that illustrates quite well that sexual identity crisis is not something linked to the gay/straight spectrum and has much more deep rooted psychological factors. Furthermore I would argue gender has both mental and physical guises. To me, people being born into the wrong gender of bodies is a birth defect as much as malformed limbs or spina bifida. Of course the reactionary approach would be to attack the mental state as being the deformity, but it is once wrong and impossible to try and alter personality. The best we can do is for science to alter the physical being of the body to make it harmonious with the mind as much as possible.

Denying MTF transexuals their femaledom is unhelpful and socially reactionary.

[StalinFanboy]

This isn't about someone with a female body identifying as female, but not being happy with their body, nor is it about a male identifying as a male but being unhappy with their body. It's someone being born into a male body but identifying as female, or vice versa. I think it would be awful and depressing and unhealthy to be in a body that you don't identify with. Sex changes should be made available to those want and need them.

And to say that this is Western bullshit is absolutely retarded. Last time I checked, India wasn't a Western country, yet there is a large population of trans people there.

I really don't see how someone wanting to get a sex change is in any way the business of anyone else.

[Nakidana]

Im not strawmanning either, and dont dodge my point.

I dont see you moaning about burns victims recieving skin grafts, or people having hip replacements (all non life saving procedures). Why then, should these conditions recieve higher importance over the psychological trauma caused by the desire and need for sexual realignment?

No one chooses to be a TS, why on earth would you willingly choose to be a member of minority group ostracised and bullied by people with the social conditioning perpetuated by ignorant gobshites like you?

Are you arguing that third world countries with hospitals looking like dumps should give cosmetic surgery the same priority as, say, treating broken limbs?

Talk about being out of touch with reality. :rolleyes:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

there are more than two genders. I say fuck the binary gender system!

[Dr Mindbender]

Are you arguing that third world countries with hospitals looking like dumps should give cosmetic surgery the same priority as, say, treating broken limbs?

Talk about being out of touch with reality. :rolleyes:

Sexual relignment isnt cosmetic surgery, dumbass. From what i've heard on medical program the sexual reasigment procedure has something like a 25% mortality rate. You'd have to be pretty fucking desperate to want to go through it.

Obesity, wrinkles etc cause nothing like the distress of having the wrong genitals. Why dont you rejoin the thread when you know what you're talking about.

[Nakidana]

Sexual relignment isnt cosmetic surgery, dumbass. From what i've heard on medical program the sexual reasigment procedure has something like a 25% mortality rate. You'd have to be pretty fucking desperate to want to go through it.

Obesity, wrinkles etc cause nothing like the distress of having the wrong genitals. Why dont you rejoin the thread when you know what you're talking about.

Kassad made the same comparison talking about the "mole on his cheek", but I didn't see you calling him a dumbass, hypocrit.

I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Personally, I don't care what they do with themselves, I have no control over that. But I do think it is revolting, and unnecessary. Honestly, I think it's just for attention, or because you want an excuse for being unsuccessful in some aspect of life.

[Invariance]

Personally, I don't care what they do with themselves, I have no control over that. But I do think it is revolting, and unnecessary. Honestly, I think it's just for attention, or because you want an excuse for being unsuccessful in some aspect of life. No, you and your bigotry are revolting.

[khad]

Obesity, wrinkles etc cause nothing like the distress of having the wrong genitals. Why dont you rejoin the thread when you know what you're talking about.

Distress, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm9pEWIPjks

[Dr Mindbender]

Kassad made the same comparison talking about the "mole on his cheek", but I didn't see you calling him a dumbass, hypocrit.

I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

I think its a different context he was talking about.

You said sexual reasignment is 'cosmetic surgery' which shows your ignorance about the matter. It is a major reconstructive operation. People have been known to bleed to death on the operating table. That just doesnt happen with facelifts and the like.

[Dr Mindbender]

Personally, I don't care what they do with themselves, I have no control over that. But I do think it is revolting, and unnecessary. Honestly, I think it's just for attention, or because you want an excuse for being unsuccessful in some aspect of life.

Run away you chauvinist cretin. You have no business on this forum.

[Jack]

Your sex is determined at birth, you can't go out and change it and ever truly be the other gender. Sure you can look like the opposite gender, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still what you were born as, even if you think you're something else.

There is no biological reasoning or incentive for someone to cut off their genitalia or anything like that, so it's not natural to be transgendered. There are plenty of larger problems in the world than if Joe feels he wants to be Joan.

[Dr Mindbender]

Your sex is determined at birth, you can't go out and change it and ever truly be the other gender. Sure you can look like the opposite gender, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still what you were born as, even if you think you're something else.
Where did you get that from? Your local cleric or right wing rag?

I seriously doubt that any TS's are particularly bothered about this sort^ of popular perception.




There is no biological reasoning or incentive for someone to cut off their genitalia or anything like that,

No incentive, eh?
http://theangels.co.uk/2009/02/pop-star-16-becomes-worlds-youngest-transsexual/


‘Transsexuals experience the onset of puberty, and the physical changes it brings, as a serious trauma.
‘But there is a general lack of empathy with cases like Kim’s, mostly because people know little about the condition. Imagine a man that suddenly starts growing breasts or a woman that starts growing a beard against their will – that is how Kim and people like her experience puberty.


so it's not natural to be transgendered. There are plenty of larger problems in the world than if Joe feels he wants to be Joan.
Yes, the liberation of people ostracised for excercising autonomy over their bodies.

Not a priority at all. :rolleyes:

*cough*tosser!*cough*

The chauvinism and ignorance of some posters on this thread is shocking. You should be ashamed to call yourselves leftists.

[Jack]

Where did you get that from? Your local cleric or right wing rag?

I seriously doubt that any TS's are particularly bothered about this sort^ of popular perception.

Oh, so not embracing and encouraging someone to cut off their genitals means I'm a radical Capitalism supporting Christian. :rolleyes:





No incentive, eh?
http://theangels.co.uk/2009/02/pop-star-16-becomes-worlds-youngest-transsexual/

Cool? Take care to note many of the superficial things he says:


"I had a problem because I couldn’t wear skinny stuff, but now I can wear whatever I want to. I really am looking forward to going swimming like everyone else and to wearing tight jeans that show off my figure. They are so tight, I always felt quite uncomfortable in them until now."

‘Now I can go as tight as I want to. I used to wear mini skirts too, but yes, now even the tight ones can be part of my wardrobe.

Also take note that the article is from a site that is very pro-trans, not a neutral source.






Yes, the liberation of people ostracised for excercising autonomy over their bodies.

Not a priority at all. :rolleyes:

*cough*tosser!*cough*

The chauvinism and ignorance of some posters on this thread is shocking. You should be ashamed to call yourselves leftists.

Oh of course I forgot, I'm immediately a rightist because I don't support someone cutting off their penis? Of course, I should be familiar with Marx and Kropotkin's writing on transgender issues and their support for bodily mutilation. Oh, wait, there are no such writings.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh, so not embracing and encouraging someone to cut off their genitals means I'm a radical Capitalism supporting Christian. :rolleyes:

No, but it does mean you're ignorant and insensitive.


Cool? Take care to note many of the superficial things he says:Who cares? Do you think she speaks for all transsexuals?


Also take note that the article is from a site that is very pro-trans, not a neutral source.You say that as if being trans is a bad thing that effects one's judgement.


Oh of course I forgot, I'm immediately a rightist because I don't support someone cutting off their penis?That is a gross mischaracterisation of sexual reassignment surgery.


Of course, I should be familiar with Marx and Kropotkin's writing on transgender issues and their support for bodily mutilation. Oh, wait, there are no such writings.Since when are Marx and Kropotkin the be-all and end-all of leftism? Personally I think taking a more considerate approach towards transsexuals and the issues they face is the mark of a decent human being, let alone a leftist.

[Jack]

No, but it does mean you're ignorant and insensitive.

That's a very liberal answer. Don't just call someone "ignorant" when they haven't expressed ignorance, it's not that I don't understand transgenders, it's that I don't support them.





n are Marx and Kropotkin the be-all and end-all of leftism? Personally I think taking a more considerate approach towards transsexuals and the issues they face is the mark of a decent human being, let alone a leftist

I say that because you were essentially accusing me of being a rightist just because I don't support transexuality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's a very liberal answer. Don't just call someone "ignorant" when they haven't expressed ignorance, it's not that I don't understand transgenders, it's that I don't support them.

You betray your ignorance with your choice of language.


I say that because you were essentially accusing me of being a rightist just because I don't support transexuality.

No, I was accusing you of being ignorant and insensitive, not of being right-wing.

[khad]

So why the sneering references to cutting off dicks?
Are you daft? Where did I ever talk about chopping dick? It seems like certain people around here cannot argue without strawmen and open slander. It's disappointing that a forum moderator, of all people, has to resort to tactics worthy of Fox News.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you daft? Where did I ever talk about chopping dick? It seems like certain people around here cannot argue without strawmen and open slander. It's disappointing that a forum moderator, of all people, has to resort to tactics worthy of Fox News.I apologise, I got you mixed up with Jack.

[Jack]

Oh, and Ulster Socialist, I'm sure giving me negative rep for being a "fucking idiot" is very accepting and embracing.

[Manifesto]

To me it is just wrong. Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would.

[h0m0revolutionary]

To me it is just wrong. Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would.

As an anarcho-communist I am ashamed that you're a comrade. Transexuality is something absolutly necessary and not as you clearly conclude, a choice solely about genitalia.

What do you tihnk marks your gender? the fact you happen to have a cock? the fact that a doctor looked at you at birth and decided you are male?

Or is it how you feel innately? what labels and stereotypes you feel most comfortable conforming with?

Here in the UK 85% of those recieveing cosmetic surgery are female, is this because gender is innate? - women are biologically predetermined to get surgery above and beyond males?
Of course not - Gender is nothing but a social contruct, and in that vein people should be free take the appropriate steps to change their gender if they're born into a body that htey feel, to put it lightly, uncomfortable with. Let me empathise this, the brain is NOT gendered, the brain is not an organ of sex, so how dare you invalidate the identity of trans people by assuming you're born into a rigid gender that you cannot stray from?!

Your whole argument rests upon outdated gender-binary assumptions which manifest itself most notably in modern stereotypes of males as strong, honourable and having integrity and females as caring, vulnerable and shy. These have long been discredited, i'd have thought revolutionaries would denounce backward ideas about gender, gender-presentation and sexuality, not embrace them.

[Pinko Panther]

To me it is just wrong. Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would.

I would. Gender is not binary. I'd be fine dating a biologically female man.

[Dr Mindbender]

To me it is just wrong. Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would.

The fact you feel that way only goes to prove that you have bought into bourgeioise social conditioning. Materially, there is nothing to seperate a birth female and a MTF transexual other than the fact that the latter cant reproduce. But then some birth females are sterile too but you wouldnt have a problem dating them no doubt so where is your major hang up?

[Dr. Zoidberg]

No, you and your bigotry are revolting.

Revolting because I believe you're fine the way you were born? I'd like to hear your opinion.

[Dr Mindbender]

Revolting because I believe you're fine the way you were born? I'd like to hear your opinion.

If someone was born with a hole in the heart, a missing limb or some other defect would you regard that as fine too?

Go and talk to someone with transexual tendencies and tell them they're fine. Then come back when you have a clue what the fuck youre on about.

[Sam_b]

Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would

I don't date people based on their gender.

[Demogorgon]

Always nice to see how pockets of disgusting bigotry seem to get tolerated on this board. I can certainly only conclude that some people here have never encountered a transgendered person if they think gender is an entirely physical thing. Of course given that around one in every thousand people are transgendered it should be hard to go through life not encountering them, but then again the prevailing bigotry on display here causes many of them to have to remain in the closet, many not even to receive the treatment they need.

Speaking of which, talk about it being a "drain on resources" is an utter red herring. For one the fact that something takes up resources does not mean it should be denied and gender reassignment is vital to the psychological well-being of transgendered people. But moreover most treatment is not that resource heavy at all. There is a myth of "the op", actually a series of operations to remove or add breasts as the case may be and sometimes to reshape the genitalia (the surgery on the genitalia is very complicated but also less common, many transgendered people are concerned only with the breasts, those being the most visible aspect of gender) but in fact the most important part of physical gender reassignment is hormonal treatment. A monthly trip to the nurse to be given an injection of cheap hormones. Oh the horrific cost! If you compare that to the enormous cost of psychological treatment that would be required for people if they were refused this treatment, the argument is looking very shaky indeed.

Really though, people are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of gender. Gender is something that seems to be determined by our physical brains. Brain scans show male and female brains to look slightly different. Transgendered people have further been shown to have the brains of their actual gender, not the gender of their genitalia. You see clearly as well with transgendered children that they are clearly identifying themselves with the other gender even if they haven't been able to express it that way yet. At first of course it will come down to a feeling that something is missing or something is there that ought not to be but by the time puberty hits things can get nasty. The psychological effect that having erections can have on a girl can be enough to cause suicide for instance. Ought that suffering to be ignored?

Really though, I suggest the bigots amongst us actually inform themselves as to the details of gender problems rather than making ubsurd comments long refuted by medical science.

[black magick hustla]

It has nothing to do with me finding transgendered folks resource draining, revolting or whatever.

I am hella mixed. I have a big nose big lips, curly hair and kindof clear skin. A friend told me once that I could pass as any race. Although there is a beauty standard for each race (i.e. a good looking black man, white man, etc) I don't think I am particularly good looking. I am too eclectic. (It is not an issue that concern me, I can carry myself around with a lot of people and women). I do not fall to any archetype of beauty. Would it be correct for me to go under the goddamn scalp to look white? Of course not.

I frankly dont care if people go through the scalp because of self-hatred. What concerns me is the society that brings people to hate themselves so much to the point they have to mutilate themselves just because folks have this ridiculous gender binary. Sp what, you are not a male because you like dresses and playing with dolls? That is bullshit. I dont care if people call me ignorant and bigotred. The whole reason why people would believe that is bigotred is that we all grew up in a spineless liberal society where nobody has the right to question why do some people act in a certain way. I am not a liberal though.

[black magick hustla]

Really though, people are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of gender. Gender is something that seems to be determined by our physical brains. Brain scans show male and female brains to look slightly different.

And the craniums of black folks look different. So you are telling me women are dictated by the shape of their brain to wear sundresses, play with dolls, and cook their husbands?

[h0m0revolutionary]

and cook their husbands?

:o

haha you mean cook FOR their husbands? =p

entirely valid point though, I would also add that there are plenty of studies that link transexualism to genetics too and have found that transmen have often have brain normalities often found within self-defined men, just as transwomen have been found to have a brian pattern closely believe to be typical of that of a female (as gender-assigned at birth).

(par example: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/worldviews/category?blogid=15&cat=2054) :P

But i think it's also worth adding that gender isn't so binary, for many trans people (although the discussion here has ben largley about transexuals) an operation isn't necessary at all, and even for those who view an operation as either vital or attractive, few are so rigid in their gender identification, for many people, myself included, gender simply doesn't register as important in their indentity. In that regard many trans people may well have the mannerisms assoscaited with one gender, but may have the physical appearance of another - and moreover, this isn't just isolated only to trans people, many people are ambigious in their gender role/ gender-presentation.

Why some people here believe gender is the be all and end all i just can't fathom :/.

[Demogorgon]

And the craniums of black folks look different. So you are telling me women are dictated by the shape of their brain to wear sundresses, play with dolls, and cook their husbands?
Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with gender roles, which are cultural, but identity and identity is something that comes from your brain (incidentally not everyone is plain male or lain female. There are people in between as well).

Don't take my word for it though. Go and ask some transgendered people to describe it for you. Maybe once you have it explained from people who have actually experienced it you will understand it a bit more.

[Demogorgon]

The whole reason why people would believe that is bigotred is that we all grew up in a spineless liberal society where nobody has the right to question why do some people act in a certain way. I am not a liberal though.
Perhaps the reason we get irritated when people question why some people are attracted to those of the same gender is because we grew up in a "spineless liberal society"?

Rejecting liberalism does not mean embracing social conservatism.

[Dr Mindbender]

shrugs: I have to agree somewhat with khad.

It has nothing to do with me finding transgendered folks resource draining, revolting or whatever.

I am hella mixed. I have a big nose big lips, curly hair and kindof clear skin. A friend told me once that I could pass as any race. Although there is a beauty standard for each race (i.e. a good looking black man, white man, etc) I don't think I am particularly good looking. I am too eclectic. (It is not an issue that concern me, I can carry myself around with a lot of people and women). I do not fall to any archetype of beauty. Would it be correct for me to go under the goddamn scalp to look white? Of course not.

Its not analogous though. The dimensions or colour of your facial appendages or skin do not affect your psychology in the same way as gender.



I frankly dont care if people go through the scalp because of self-hatred. What concerns me is the society that brings people to hate themselves so much to the point they have to mutilate themselves just because folks have this ridiculous gender binary. Sp what, you are not a male because you like dresses and playing with dolls? That is bullshit. I dont care if people call me ignorant and bigotred. The whole reason why people would believe that is bigotred is that we all grew up in a spineless liberal society where nobody has the right to question why do some people act in a certain way. I am not a liberal though.

What about the fact that pre-TS's feel physically repulsed by the sight of their own genetalia, even from a childhood age. I think even in an androgynous, gender-neutral society people would still have sex changes because of their desire with becoming closer to specific biological functions (eg. being penetrated from the front in the case of a TMF TS).I'm not convinced it's as simple as popular social attitudes.

Moreover this debate is about bodilly autonomy anyway, we shouldnt be looking to discourage people from excercising it.

[#FF0000]

Your sex is determined at birth, you can't go out and change it and ever truly be the other gender. Sure you can look like the opposite gender, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still what you were born as, even if you think you're something else.

There is no biological reasoning or incentive for someone to cut off their genitalia or anything like that, so it's not natural to be transgendered. There are plenty of larger problems in the world than if Joe feels he wants to be Joan.

Sex and gender are different, champ. You're born with sex, but not with gender.

[black magick hustla]

Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with gender roles, which are cultural, but identity and identity is something that comes from your brain (incidentally not everyone is plain male or lain female. There are people in between as well).

Don't take my word for it though. Go and ask some transgendered people to describe it for you. Maybe once you have it explained from people who have actually experienced it you will understand it a bit more.

I would be very careful to call "medical science" for issues like this. Throughout history, all those arguments about brain shape, form etc have been used to justify the worst of reactionary ideas. It was scientists who said that us mestizo and black folks were "intellectually deficient" because the volume of our brains.

Identity is completely socially constructed. The only reason why I feel like a non-white man is because everybody looks at me different. Human nature is not essentialist.


Its not analogous though. The dimensions or colour of your facial appendages or skin do not affect your psychology in the same way as gender.

How do you know? How can you quantify psychological distress?


What about the fact that pre-TS's feel physically repulsed by the sight of their own genetalia, even from a childhood age. I think even in an androgynous, gender-neutral society people would still have sex changes because of their desire with becoming closer to specific biological functions (eg. being penetrated from the front in the case of a TMF TS).I'm not convinced it's as simple as popular social attitudes.

I don't believe there is some "biology" inherent in people to decide to mutilate their genitalia. I believe there is some explanation deeply rooted socially.

[Manifesto]

The fact you feel that way only goes to prove that you have bought into bourgeioise social conditioning. Materially, there is nothing to seperate a birth female and a MTF transexual other than the fact that the latter cant reproduce. But then some birth females are sterile too but you wouldnt have a problem dating them no doubt so where is your major hang up?
Well I would like to have kids some day so that would be a set back. And for the "The fact you feel that way only goes to prove that you have bought into bourgeois social conditioning." my parents are proletariat (other members are bourgeois in my family) but I did grow up with a Republican father and still am trying to unlearn everything from him.:D

[Manifesto]

As an anarcho-communist I am ashamed that you're a comrade. Transexuality is something absolutly necessary and not as you clearly conclude, a choice solely about genitalia.

What do you tihnk marks your gender? the fact you happen to have a cock? the fact that a doctor looked at you at birth and decided you are male?

Or is it how you feel innately? what labels and stereotypes you feel most comfortable conforming with?

Here in the UK 85% of those recieveing cosmetic surgery are female, is this because gender is innate? - women are biologically predetermined to get surgery above and beyond males?
Of course not - Gender is nothing but a social contruct, and in that vein people should be free take the appropriate steps to change their gender if they're born into a body that htey feel, to put it lightly, uncomfortable with. Let me empathise this, the brain is NOT gendered, the brain is not an organ of sex, so how dare you invalidate the identity of trans people by assuming you're born into a rigid gender that you cannot stray from?!

Your whole argument rests upon outdated gender-binary assumptions which manifest itself most notably in modern stereotypes of males as strong, honourable and having integrity and females as caring, vulnerable and shy. These have long been discredited, i'd have thought revolutionaries would denounce backward ideas about gender, gender-presentation and sexuality, not embrace them.
And to this I think I may have jumped the gun a bit in responding to khad. What I meant is that I think the media has made it seem to people that they are the wrong gender, like for instance Mr./Ms./Mr. Garrison from South Park (btw when they showed a sex change operation on South Park that was just really gross http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103817/?autoplay=false).

[Demogorgon]

I would be very careful to call "medical science" for issues like this. Throughout history, all those arguments about brain shape, form etc have been used to justify the worst of reactionary ideas. It was scientists who said that us mestizo and black folks were "intellectually deficient" because the volume of our brains.You cannot just say that x has been used for reactionary reasons therefore x has no merit. The fact is the brain scans have shown this up. There is no evidence of difference in ability, but difference in the shape of certain aspects of the brain is there for everyone to see.

In the initial stages of pregnancy all fetuses are female and hormonal "flushes" activate-to use a clumsy word-xy cromosones in ones who are to be male and otherwise alter them. It is perfectly possible that the body and be changed and the brain not and vice versa. And in around one in every thousand pregnancies that is precisely what happens. All the transphobia in the world cannot alter that fact.


I don't believe there is some "biology" inherent in people to decide to mutilate their genitalia. I believe there is some explanation deeply rooted socially.
You can "believe" things all you want, but you are going to have to cough up some evidence if you want everyone else to take you seriously. All the evidence points otherwise.

That aside, your obsession with "mutilating" genitals is showing your own biases, namely your physical disgust at the process, rather than any kind of rational outlook on the matter. You are no better in that regard than homophobes who justify their prejudices by pointing to disgust at anal sex. Moreover as has been explained to you already and as you have willfully ignored, fixing genitalia is not the main part of gender reassignment, many transgendered people never have it. The principle aspect of it is hormonal treatment.

On top of that, if gender were just a social thing, then it would be possible to raise non transgendered children as the other gender and they would not have difficulty with it, but it is not. There was a time when it was thought best that baby boys whose genitals were damaged, generally during circumcision be castrated and raised as girls, usually not told what had happened. Yet they always still identified as boys.

[black magick hustla]

You cannot just say that x has been used for reactionary reasons therefore x has no merit. The fact is the brain scans have shown this up. There is no evidence of difference in ability, but difference in the shape of certain aspects of the brain is there for everyone to see.

I am quite aware of these "brain" arguments. I am not disputing the fact that scientists might perceive certain differences. My point is that this do not necessarily translate into people becoming trans folks. I think there are some deep philosophical and valid objections for this type of thinking.



In the initial stages of pregnancy all fetuses are female and hormonal "flushes" activate-to use a clumsy word-xy cromosones in ones who are to be male and otherwise alter them. It is perfectly possible that the body and be changed and the brain not and vice versa. And in around one in every thousand pregnancies that is precisely what happens. All the transphobia in the world cannot alter that fact.

I am not a transphobe. I do not get disgusted nor repelled by them. So quit implying that.

Can you cite some sources about this? I honestly doubt there is a clear scientific concensus in this type of issue (in the same way there isnt for "homosexual genes")


You can "believe" things all you want, but you are going to have to cough up some evidence if you want everyone else to take you seriously. All the evidence points otherwise.

What evidence? Besides some vague scientific cherry picking (i.e. forms or brain, etc) I don't see how the evidence is stronger than lets say, arguing that women should cook and wear sundresses because they have different brains than males.


That aside, your obsession with "mutilating" genitals is showing your own biases, namely your physical disgust at the process, rather than any kind of rational outlook on the matter. You are no better in that regard than homophobes who justify their prejudices by pointing to disgust at anal sex.

First you are being an ass to compare my argument to out of the mill social conservatism. My argument is similar to Malcolm's X's argument on self hate. You are damn right I am against people butchering their body because they want to comform to a certain social archetype established in society (i.e. a woman with boobs that wears dresses).


On top of that, if gender were just a social thing, then it would be possible to raise non transgendered children as the other gender and they would not have difficulty with it, but it is not. There was a time when it was thought best that baby boys whose genitals were damaged, generally during circumcision be castrated and raised as girls, usually not told what had happened. Yet they always still identified as boys.

This proves nothing. The physical characteristics associated with males are many more than just a lack of penis.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think comrades in this debate are getting hung up on the difference between the objective view of gender and the subjective view of it in modern society.

I agree with the people saying that gender is a social construct - aside from a few physical and hormonal differences between the sexes, what makes one male or female is based on society.

But just because it is a social construct in the objective doesn't mean that people can just dismiss the impact of gender in modern society. Because people feel the pressure to fit into one of the socially constructed boxes of gender and sexuality that actually doesn't describe any individual perfectly - some people are going to want to change their gender identification. We should fully support their rights to do this and defend them against bigotry and discrimination.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Wow, there's been a lot of stupidity in this thread since I last saw it.

Your sex is determined at birth, you can't go out and change it and ever truly be the other gender. Sure you can look like the opposite gender, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still what you were born as, even if you think you're something else.
Gender is a social construct. It means nothing at all beyond the meanings that we collectively choose to assign to it. And learn the difference between sex and gender.


There is no biological reasoning or incentive for someone to cut off their genitalia or anything like that, so it's not natural to be transgendered.
Since when did being natural have anything to do with anything? It's not natural to use a computer either, I don't see you objecting to that.

There are plenty of larger problems in the world than if Joe feels he wants to be Joan.
Point me to anyone in this thread claiming that trans issues are the biggest problem in the world. Cancer is a larger problem than measles, so that means that we shouldn't bother treating measles, right?

Oh, so not embracing and encouraging someone to cut off their genitals means I'm a radical Capitalism supporting Christian.
Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


Also take note that the article is from a site that is very pro-trans, not a neutral source.

You're actually being ridiculous. If we were discussing homosexuality, would you insist on using a "neutral" source that wasn't "pro-gay"?


Oh of course I forgot, I'm immediately a rightist because I don't support someone cutting off their penis?
If you don't support personal autonomy, then your "anarchism" is on very shaky ground.

That's a very liberal answer. Don't just call someone "ignorant" when they haven't expressed ignorance, it's not that I don't understand transgenders, it's that I don't support them.

It was a polite answer. It's generally nicer to assume that someone's talking shit because they don't know what they're talking about, rather than because they've surveyed the issue in depth and still decided to talk utter shite.


Oh, and Ulster Socialist, I'm sure giving me negative rep for being a "fucking idiot" is very accepting and embracing.
If there was surgery you could have to stop you saying fucking idiotic things, we would fully support your right to have the operation.

To me it is just wrong. Who would be okay if they were dating someone and it turns out that they had an operation and are not really that gender? I doubt anybody would.
A ) Again, since people seem to have difficulty grasping this: gender is a fucking social construct. People are "really" whatever gender we decide they are.
B ) I'm pretty sure a lot of people would. You must've led quite a sheltered life.

I merely pointed out the fact that your have a overwhelming dislike of 'westerners' based on their culture and background. This is a horrible position to have and is completely un-leftist. Leftist are international or transnational and do not draw line between people base on geography or culture, or anything besides class.
To be fair, I don't think Khad was actually being that unreasonable. Our consciousness is determined by our experiences, and so Westerners might not be aware of certain culturally specific ideas. That's not a racist or nationalistic thing to say. For instance, someone who wasn't from South Asia might not have encountered the concept of Hijra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29), which basically blows a lot of the stupid gender binary shit that's been said in this thread completely out of the water.

[pastradamus]

This is a non-issue. As far as catering for the individual is concerned people should be allowed cosmetic sex changes if they are of sound mind then I dont see why not. If it improves the quality of someones life and mental health - then I dont see why not.

Now as for putting it on the NHS.....ehhhhhhhhhh.

[#FF0000]

This is a non-issue. As far as catering for the individual is concerned people should be allowed cosmetic sex changes if they are of sound mind then I dont see why not. If it improves the quality of someones life and mental health - then I dont see why not.

Now as for putting it on the NHS.....ehhhhhhhhhh.

Like Demo said, it's mostly cheap hormone treatment.

[Demogorgon]

I am quite aware of these "brain" arguments. I am not disputing the fact that scientists might perceive certain differences. My point is that this do not necessarily translate into people becoming trans folks. I think there are some deep philosophical and valid objections for this type of thinking.

Why does it not translate to that? Because it does not suit you? Why does a male brain not equal a male person or a female brain equal a female person?


I am not a transphobe. I do not get disgusted nor repelled by them. So quit implying that. I am replying to what you have written and taking your views as I see them. If you were to say the things you are saying about transgendered people about gay people for instance, you would be restricted in an instant. I am not calling for that of course because the restriction system doesn't work, but that is a different issue, the point is you are sayinbg things that are deeply offensive to all transgendered people.


Can you cite some sources about this? I honestly doubt there is a clear scientific concensus in this type of issue (in the same way there isnt for "homosexual genes")On what? That fetuses start out female regardless of eventual gender or that it is possible for the brain and body to get different changes? Neither of these are particularly controversial.


What evidence? Besides some vague scientific cherry picking (i.e. forms or brain, etc) I don't see how the evidence is stronger than lets say, arguing that women should cook and wear sundresses because they have different brains than males.

Are you even aware that this is all well researched and that is why modern medicine is able to provide such good gender reassignment? You are talking as if this is a barely understood subject and anyone's guess is a valid argument regardless of whether it is based on evidence. If medical science is wrong, prove it so. Don't just tell us you don't believe in it.


First you are being an ass to compare my argument to out of the mill social conservatism. My argument is similar to Malcolm's X's argument on self hate. You are damn right I am against people butchering their body because they want to comform to a certain social archetype established in society (i.e. a woman with boobs that wears dresses).

There you go again. Self hate, butchering bodies. Such talk is certainly disgusting to transgendered people and they would dispute your claims not to be a bigot, I will tall you that for sure. Do you realise how ridiculous you sound incidentally? Someone who plainly knows little about the subject making blanket statements that medical science is plain wrong and that transgendered people aren't really transgendered at all, they just have mental problems and such. People say identical things about gay people and we call them homophobes. What makes it better when you target it at another minority? The fact there are fewer of them?


This proves nothing. The physical characteristics associated with males are many more than just a lack of penis.
Castrate someone as a baby and give them female hormones and they won't develop any physical male characteristics. Yet they will come to identify as males anyway.

[Dr Mindbender]

Now as for putting it on the NHS.....ehhhhhhhhhh.

Whats wrong with that?

Would you rather it was handled by the private sector?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Whats wrong with that?

Would you rather it was handled by the private sector?

It would have to go into the private sector, how could the UK, US etc possibly afford tranny operations that will go a huge way to restoring the self-worth of trans individuals and i daresay make them happy?!

We have nuclear warheads to build!
Wars to wage!
... and those bank bailouts won't pay for themselves!

[Dr Mindbender]

The ignorance of some so called 'comrades' really astounds me here.

If it isnt downright ignorance and tactlessness towards one of the most vulnerable minority groups, it's calling for 'Mac-sex changes.'

It's a fucking joke, sort it out.

[the last donut of the night]

The people quoted should be restricted at the least.Preferably banned.

Even if you hate their views, that's no fucking reason to ban or even restrict people. It doesn't matter if you find them revolting. In a healthy democracy, everybody gets to talk. Not only people who you think are right enough to talk. What you just said is revolting, but I wouldn't restrict or ban you even if I had some position of authority. I don't care if you hate the other person's guts. Everybody in a democracy speaks. Everybody. Your contempt for people who don't think like you is the most revolting thing on this website. And you're not the only one. There's ton of other members who think that free speech only applies to people they think are correct. Please. This smells like fucking shit.

[#FF0000]

Even if you hate their views, that's no fucking reason to ban or even restrict people. It doesn't matter if you find them revolting. In a healthy democracy, everybody gets to talk. Not only people who you think are right enough to talk. What you just said is revolting, but I wouldn't restrict or ban you even if I had some position of authority. I don't care if you hate the other person's guts. Everybody in a democracy speaks. Everybody. Your contempt for people who don't think like you is the most revolting thing on this website. And you're not the only one. There's ton of other members who think that free speech only applies to people they think are correct. Please. This smells like fucking shit.

We ban racists and restrict sexists.

[F9]

Even if you hate their views, that's no fucking reason to ban or even restrict people. It doesn't matter if you find them revolting. In a healthy democracy, everybody gets to talk. Not only people who you think are right enough to talk. What you just said is revolting, but I wouldn't restrict or ban you even if I had some position of authority. I don't care if you hate the other person's guts. Everybody in a democracy speaks. Everybody. Your contempt for people who don't think like you is the most revolting thing on this website. And you're not the only one. There's ton of other members who think that free speech only applies to people they think are correct. Please. This smells like fucking shit.

This site isnt a fucking democracy, nor a communist community.Understand it!Its a forum where revolutionary leftists get to talk, the fact that we allow not revolutionary leftists(threw OI) to be kinda around its more than enough and its the best "democracy" we can give...
If you want a free speech forum, try those numerous ones online filth with nationalist, sexism and racism and go there have your desired "free speech" conversations.Here is a "dictaroship" and we wont allow any fascist rascist scum ruin the forum.Yeah blame the "authoritys" as much as you want.You can make and a revolution if you want....:rolleyes:
No one forces you stay in here, if you dont like it, just stop logging in.
Its a revolutionary left forum that no one ever said its a democracy so stop whinying!

Fuserg9:star:

[h0m0revolutionary]

This site isnt a fucking democracy, nor a communist community.Understand it!Its a forum where revolutionary leftists get to talk, the fact that we allow not revolutionary leftists(threw OI) to be kinda around its more than enough and its the best "democracy" we can give...
If you want a free speech forum, try those numerous ones online filth with nationalist, sexism and racism and go there have your desired "free speech" conversations.Here is a "dictaroship" and we wont allow any fascist rascist scum ruin the forum.Yeah blame the "authoritys" as much as you want.You can make and a revolution if you want....:rolleyes:
No one forces you stay in here, if you dont like it, just stop logging in.
Its a revolutionary left forum that no one ever said its a democracy so stop whinying!

Fuserg9:star:

That's not to deny entirely valid democratic credentials of this forum, there are many. But we won't tolerate sexists, or racists, or homophobes, yet for some reason we accept transphobes. I think this discussion should galvanise those to whom responcibily falls, to change the rules regarding what grounds one can be banned/restricted from revleft for. Transphobia is as groundless and damaging to our movement as homophobia and racism, but does not get the recognition it deserves. If we tolerate the sort of hideous crap being spewed against trans individuals here, I fear what sort of other intolerent and discrimminatory crap we'd tolerate :/

[F9]

That's not to deny entirely valid democratic credentials of this forum, there are many. But we won't tolerate sexists, or racists, or homophobes, yet for some reason we accept transphobes. I think this discussion should galvanise those to whom responcibily falls, to change the rules regarding what grounds one can be banned/restricted from revleft for. Transphobia is as groundless and damaging to our movement as homophobia and racism, but does not get the recognition it deserves. If we tolerate the sort of hideous crap being spewed against trans individuals here, I fear what sort of other intolerent and discrimminatory crap we'd tolerate :/

What?We do not accept transphobes.Like other sexists are restricted in CC!I know two cases which have been brought in last days, both restricted!

[black magick hustla]

Why does it not translate to that? Because it does not suit you? Why does a male brain not equal a male person or a female brain equal a female person?
Geez. I already quoted you historical examples where the argument of brains was used for shitty political opinions. The nature of your argument is the same, except that if a similar argument was used to support racist or sexist shit you would reject it. The only thing this scientists can explain is that there are different structures in different sexes. Beyond that is just wild elucidation, as has been proven by history.



I am replying to what you have written and taking your views as I see them. If you were to say the things you are saying about transgendered people about gay people for instance, you would be restricted in an instant.
I dont see how this applies. My only critique of transgendered folks is the issue of physical self-hatred and the acceptance of certain archetypes that are certainly cultural. I.e. dresses, boobs, etc. How can I say the "same" stuff about queer folks? The only reason you are mad at me is because I dare to question how sometimes people exchange liberal sensibilities for clear thought. I don't find trans folks repulsive, repelling, abnormal, or whatever.



I am not calling for that of course because the restriction system doesn't work, but that is a different issue, the point is you are sayinbg things that are deeply offensive to all transgendered people.
:shrugs: It is offensive to call black folks uncle toms. I dont want to be mean but this is a discussion forum, not some sort of dinner party. Again, I dont think trans folks should be bullied, or be expelled from organizations, etc.



Are you even aware that this is all well researched and that is why modern medicine is able to provide such good gender reassignment? You are talking as if this is a barely understood subject and anyone's guess is a valid argument regardless of whether it is based on evidence. If medical science is wrong, prove it so. Don't just tell us you don't believe in it.

I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am merely dissolving the ridiculous argument of shape of brain = personality. It is you who cannot tell my why is the argument different from saying that different forms of brains in females mean that females like to wear sundresses, pink, and do house work.


There you go again. Self hate, butchering bodies. Such talk is certainly disgusting to transgendered people and they would dispute your claims not to be a bigot, I will tall you that for sure. Do you realise how ridiculous you sound incidentally? Someone who plainly knows little about the subject making blanket statements that medical science is plain wrong and that transgendered people aren't really transgendered at all, they just have mental problems and such.

I said nothing of that sort, you are just a goddamn witch hunter. I didnt say medical science was "wrong". I said you cant say that the shape of brains translate into some sort of hard wired human nature. It is a shitty argument used by the worst 0people and you are only using it right now because it serves your political beliefs. Nor I said they have "mental problems".


People say identical things about gay people and we call them homophobes. What makes it better when you target it at another minority? The fact there are fewer of them?


Castrate someone as a baby and give them female hormones and they won't develop any physical male characteristics. Yet they will come to identify as males anyway.

I doubt they magically turn into women.

[the last donut of the night]

This site isnt a fucking democracy, nor a communist community.Understand it!Its a forum where revolutionary leftists get to talk, the fact that we allow not revolutionary leftists(threw OI) to be kinda around its more than enough and its the best "democracy" we can give...
If you want a free speech forum, try those numerous ones online filth with nationalist, sexism and racism and go there have your desired "free speech" conversations.Here is a "dictaroship" and we wont allow any fascist rascist scum ruin the forum.Yeah blame the "authoritys" as much as you want.You can make and a revolution if you want....:rolleyes:
No one forces you stay in here, if you dont like it, just stop logging in.
Its a revolutionary left forum that no one ever said its a democracy so stop whinying!

This response is disappointing at best. If this isn't a democracy, then at least we have to try our hardest. Because fostering a democracy here leads to a greater want for democracy out there. And isn't the revolutionary left truly about democracy, economic and political? Another word for communist could well be a democrat (even if that has been hollowed out here in the USA and everywhere else).

If we only allow the desired people in here, then this really isn't discussion anymore, is it? If we were to allow people to openly voice their opinions and not have such an aggressive element toward them, then we could actually change their stance instead of scaring them off or isolating themselves into their own opinions. See, it's a win-win situation.

[the last donut of the night]

We ban racists and restrict sexists.

Nothing good about sexism. Nothing good about racism. We should get that cleared up before I inevitably get called a racist and a sexist. If we want people to leave the forum, then by their own choices and through peaceful argument and debate. Not through bans and discussions.

[black magick hustla]

To elaborate on my position about the ridiculous and counterrevolutionary essentialism of some people in this board, I think the proposition of shape of brain translating to personality is not a scientific proposition and its scientists playing philosophy. It just opens a whole can of worms that have nothing to do with analyzing differing brain structures. The argument is so tenuous that it has been used by past scientists playing philosophy to justify white dominance.

I used to be completely ok with transgendered cosmetic surgeries (because i never found them repulsive, morally reprehensible etc, nor i do now) until i read this http://libcom.org/forums/anarchist-federation/manchester-gay-pride-critique-25082008.

Basically, what does it mean "I feel like a woman inside a man"? Do you feel like having a pair of boobs, shopping, wearing dresses, etc? It just plays into this absurd gender binary that is completely socially constructed.

[Lynx]

Basically, what does it mean "I feel like a woman inside a man"? Do you feel like having a pair of boobs, shopping, wearing dresses, etc? It just plays into this absurd gender binary that is completely socially constructed.
It means their gender identity does not match their biological sex.
It means they feel uncomfortable, if not traumatized.

"Men" who do not want breasts, or do not wish to wear feminine clothing are also following "this absurd gender binary that is completely socially constructed."
If they didn't follow it, they would feel uncomfortable, if not traumatized.

[Demogorgon]

Geez. I already quoted you historical examples where the argument of brains was used for shitty political opinions. The nature of your argument is the same, except that if a similar argument was used to support racist or sexist shit you would reject it. The only thing this scientists can explain is that there are different structures in different sexes. Beyond that is just wild elucidation, as has been proven by history.
YOu haven't offered anything. You have told us that throughout history people provided false evidence that black people had inferior brains, but what relevance does that have here? Does it change the fact that certain nodes in the male brain are shaped differently to their equivalents in the female brain? Does it change the fact that when one has said shape at variance with their physical gender they are always transgendered?


I dont see how this applies. My only critique of transgendered folks is the issue of physical self-hatred and the acceptance of certain archetypes that are certainly cultural. I.e. dresses, boobs, etc. How can I say the "same" stuff about queer folks? The only reason you are mad at me is because I dare to question how sometimes people exchange liberal sensibilities for clear thought. I don't find trans folks repulsive, repelling, abnormal, or whatever.

That is a cop out and you know it. If somebody said gay people are suffering from some kind of psychological flaw and anyone who won't acept that is being blinded by "liberal sensibilities", how would you react?

Interesting you use the word "queer" incidentally, as transgendered people are included under that term. That is why it is called the LGBT community.


:shrugs: It is offensive to call black folks uncle toms. I dont want to be mean but this is a discussion forum, not some sort of dinner party. Again, I dont think trans folks should be bullied, or be expelled from organizations, etc.

Oh, so if someone comes out with a line of racist, homophobic, sexist arguments, it is fine because it is a discussion forum, not a dinner party? What makes transphobic statements different?

Your claim that you are not being transphobic doesn't cut it, because racists, homophobes and the rest also deny they are bigots. The fact is any transgendered person would see you as a transphobe. What makes you different from racists claiming not to be racist?

I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am merely dissolving the ridiculous argument of shape of brain = personality. It is you who cannot tell my why is the argument different from saying that different forms of brains in females mean that females like to wear sundresses, pink, and do house work.

Don't be obtuse. When has anyone said anything about personality? The discussion is about gender identity. Anyone who even has a passing aquaintance with any transgendered people will soon tell that this has nothing to do with gender roles-indeed transgendered people are frequently the strongest opponents of such thinking-and anyone who knows anything about the subject knows you are talking about completely irrelevant subjects in an effort to cover for your own lack of knowledge.


I said nothing of that sort, you are just a goddamn witch hunter. I didnt say medical science was "wrong". I said you cant say that the shape of brains translate into some sort of hard wired human nature. It is a shitty argument used by the worst 0people and you are only using it right now because it serves your political beliefs. Nor I said they have "mental problems".
Where is the witch hunt? I challenge bigots of all stripes. I have never left a racist off the hook just because they protest they are not a racist and I have never left a homophobe off the hook because they protest likewise. I am not about to apply lower standards in my defence of transgendered people, particularly faced with someone who does not even want to learn about the subject and would rather repeat ill informed statements because they are more within his comfort zone.


I doubt they magically turn into women.
They don't, because they have male brains. But physically they have no way of knowing they have no way of knowing they are male. Particularly before puberty. So why do they always identify as male? Despite their parents making a concerted effort to raise them female?

[pastradamus]

Whats wrong with that?

Would you rather it was handled by the private sector?

Of course not. Im not disagreeing im simply looking for all other opinions on this here. I havent my own mind made up in other words.
But how would you categorise a sex change?

Would you call it Medical or Cosmetic?

But then again I suppose if the NHS spent a few hundread million setting up homeopathic clinics(non-medicinal glorified placebo quackery clinics) then I dont see why not.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

We ban racists and restrict sexists.
Is one offence officially punished more harshly than the other? That seems weird to me, I wouldn't say racism is any worse than sexism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is one offence officially punished more harshly than the other? That seems weird to me, I wouldn't say racism is any worse than sexism.

It might have something to do with the fact that Revleft's servers are located in Germany, which has very strict laws on the matter.

[Dr Mindbender]

Of course not. Im not disagreeing im simply looking for all other opinions on this here. I havent my own mind made up in other words.
But how would you categorise a sex change?

Would you call it Medical or Cosmetic?



If by cosmetic you mean unnecessary, then absolutely not. As has been said by myself, and other posters here those who feel the procedure necessary do so for motives that are causing great distress, sometimes from childhood and sometimes ones that drive them to the brink of suicide. Also no, I don't accept the theory about popularly concieved gender binaries. I think it is much more complicated than that, and i dont think that a lot of folks here understand gender indentity crisis.

There is no socially progressive rationale to curtail sex changes, and by removing it from the public sector you'd be doing just that, making it accessible only to the elite medical policy holders.

[turquino]

I think a transsexual identity is incoherent. If women were being born into male bodies and vice versa it would suggest the existence of some sort of curious dualism. I have no argument to offer either for or against surgery, but I think we should be careful about unquestioningly accepting some of the essentialist claims of trans advocates.

[bcbm]

Basically, what does it mean "I feel like a woman inside a man"? Do you feel like having a pair of boobs, shopping, wearing dresses, etc? It just plays into this absurd gender binary that is completely socially constructed.

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about then please don't.

[black magick hustla]

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about then please don't.


How is it different from an anorexic girl thinking she is fat and wanting cosmetic surgery, or a black man thinking he is white in the inside? I am not denying that all these feelings are very real but the question arises, what does it mean to feel white but you are black? Why is the distress of transgender folks suddenly more leftist than a traumatized girl wanting to get big boobs? I am not saying this people should not get all the cosmetic surgeries they want or marry or be considred legally women/men but if it is correct to build a political position around this type of stuff.

[Lynx]

How is it different from an anorexic girl thinking she is fat and wanting cosmetic surgery, or a black man thinking he is white in the inside? I am not denying that all these feelings are very real but the question arises, what does it mean to feel white but you are black? Why is the distress of transgender folks suddenly more leftist than a traumatized girl wanting to get big boobs? I am not saying this people should not get all the cosmetic surgeries they want or marry or be considred legally women/men but if it is correct to build a political position around this type of stuff.
The question is whether we should allow offensive comments to go unanswered.

[Dr Mindbender]

How is it different from an anorexic girl thinking she is fat and wanting cosmetic surgery, or a black man thinking he is white in the inside? I am not denying that all these feelings are very real but the question arises, what does it mean to feel white but you are black? Why is the distress of transgender folks suddenly more leftist than a traumatized girl wanting to get big boobs? I am not saying this people should not get all the cosmetic surgeries they want or marry or be considred legally women/men but if it is correct to build a political position around this type of stuff.

Why not? Abortion is also a hot potato (correctly IMO) for more or less the same reasons, ie bodilly autonomy. I dont see you talking down anyone for forming a political opinion around that though.

Secondly, how on earth can you compare it to dietry issues? Also Michael Jackson aside, when the hell have you heard of a black man yearning to be white? Transexuality is more relevant to the real world because it does occur, with some level of frequency.

[Atrus]

Secondly, how on earth can you compare it to dietry issues?

Agreed. The problem with Anorexia is the health problems that it results in, NOT the "way of life", as it were. A fat person leads a life not significantly different from that of a thin person, so if there were no negative health problems from Anorexia, there'd be no issue with it.
In this case, however, men and women lead different lives. Whilst equal, there are many significant differences, from which toilets you use to how you dress, and so this is in no way comparable to an eating disorder.

Personally I think that there should be total gender liberation. If people wish to change their sex, then so be it. With certain controls in place, of course, but ultimately anyone who feels that they are of a different gender to their body can have that corrected.
We should also be just as welcoming of those who wish to remain in their body, but dress differently to what we may expect. We should do everything possible to make life just as easy for them as for everyone else, for example putting in place gender neutral toilets.

[bcbm]

How is it different from an anorexic girl thinking she is fat and wanting cosmetic surgery

First you equate concern over gender identity with "wanting shopping and boobs" or some rubbish like that, which has absolutely fuck-all to do with transgender issues. Now you're equating those feelings with a psychiatric illness? Get a clue man.

[black magick hustla]

The question is whether we should allow offensive comments to go unanswered.

:shrugs: There is a difference between comments being offensive or bigoted. Maybe I lack tact but what I said is no way transphobic and i recent you folks accusing me of that bs.



First you equate concern over gender identity with "wanting shopping and boobs" or some rubbish like that, which has absolutely fuck-all to do with transgender issues. Now you're equating those feelings with a psychiatric illness? Get a clue man.

I think gender roles have all to do with transgender subculture. I think the cultural perception of feminity reflects a lot in the ways trans folks act, dress, etc. Perhaps the more radical commuity does not fall in this but out of the mill trans folks?

I dont believe in psychiatry as valid scientific discourse so your point is moot. My point is that leftists suddenly take the opressed caused without giving fuck all of thought about it, and how perhaps class society makes people want to fit into this roles to the point of cosmetic surgery. Just as how people go through the scalp all the time to look white (i.e. make the nose thinner, straighten hair, etc).


Secondly, how on earth can you compare it to dietry issues? Also Michael Jackson aside, when the hell have you heard of a black man yearning to be white?

Malcolm X talked about it when black folks straightened their hair or black females might use make up. So it was frequent enough. Besides, just look at every cosmetic surgey. Thin noses are a white attribute and people try to get them all the time.

[khad]

Secondly, how on earth can you compare it to dietry issues? Also Michael Jackson aside, when the hell have you heard of a black man yearning to be white?

I suppose you've never heard of oreos, coconuts, bananas, apples, etc.

While you are busy calling a witch hunt over "transphobia," you need to reexamine your own ignorance and insensitivity towards matters of race.

[bcbm]

I think gender roles have all to do with transgender subculture. I think the cultural perception of feminity reflects a lot in the ways trans folks act, dress, etc. Perhaps the more radical commuity does not fall in this but out of the mill trans folks?

Which is why countless cultures have had trans people or other gender options besides male and female? I think surely there is a bit more to it than liking shopping.


My point is that leftists suddenly take the opressed caused without giving fuck all of thought about it, and how perhaps class society makes people want to fit into this roles to the point of cosmetic surgery.

Some of my best friends are trans and we've talked about it plenty but yeah, I haven't given a wink of thought to this.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think a transsexual identity is incoherent. If women were being born into male bodies and vice versa it would suggest the existence of some sort of curious dualism. I have no argument to offer either for or against surgery, but I think we should be careful about unquestioningly accepting some of the essentialist claims of trans advocates.
I don't think you need to unquestioningly accept essentialist ideas to think that defending bodily autonomy is vital, tho.

[Agrippa]

Without reading through the seven-page clusterfuck, I'd like to jump in.

I think the queer community needs to challenge the "transgendered" paradigm. The mainstream, be it straight or "transgendered", treats "transgendered" people as if they were a deformity, one of God's horrible mistake, a blight in need of being "cured". The obsession with "transitioning" among the transgendered community is, in my opinion, unhealthy. It's rooted in a gender binary essentialism that has indoctrinated millions of trans/hermaph people into thinking they need to modify their physiology and behavior to fit into one of two acceptable gender categories.

In my experience the majority of people who are considered "transgendered" by our society are hermaphrodites. (or, in more PC terminology, the "intersexed") Those with typical hermaphrodite conditions are healthy and beautiful, and don't need invasive surgery and dangerous synthetic drugs to live normal, wonderful, satisfying lives. Hermaphrodites, rather than trying in vain to transform themselves another sex, must appreciate themselves for what they are, for what they've traditionally understood themselves to be, the third sex.

Obviously extreme conditions such as hypospadias, which are sometimes lumped in with intersex conditions, should defintely be treated with surgery, and I support anyone's personal right as an autonomous individual to get any surgery they want, and there are safer, more traditional methods of treating hormone imbalance, but all and all I think it's time for the queer community to stop spear-heading the cosmetic surgery and pharmacutical industries in its culturally imperialistic quest to find the "cure" for intersex conditions.

Edit: And before the ignorant chime in, when I say that most transpeople are hermaphrodites, I'm not saying that most transpeople are born with a penis and a vagina. That is only one specific form of intersex condition. The mainstream media and the medical establishment have always made "transexuality" out to be a mental disorder, when the fact is that the vast majority of transpeople are physiologically distinct. (many transwomen having been born with microphalluses, undescended testicles/ovaries, naturally high voices, obviously female breasts/hips, etc. and many transmen born with similarly male physiological features such as body hair, inverted nipples, flat chests, low voices, large clits, etc. The patriarchal medical establishment used to refer to these people as "pseudo-hermaphrodites") Others I think post-modernist queer theory puts way too much emphasis on social gender, since despite all the deconstructionist posturing, gender is in the end a social manifestation of biological sex.

[black magick hustla]

Which is why countless cultures have had trans people or other gender options besides male and female? I think surely there is a bit more to it than liking shopping.´


i apologize for my hyperbole but i have no tact whatsoever so i am sorry. however, i think you are exaggerating the presence of more experimental millieus. i think most transfolks generally try to act as stereotypical females or males, even in their mannerisms. i dont think there are numbers for this so i guess it all depends on anecotal evidence.

[Atrus]

i think most transfolks generally try to act as stereotypical females or males, even in their mannerisms.

Your conjecture is not enough to base anything on. Unless you have met every trans person in the world and know that this is true of every single one of them, you cannot generalise.
And you think wrong, anyway. I know countless transfolk who act fitting no stereotype, simply in a way that makes them most comfortable. And in fact a large number of transfolk do not just feel like the opposite gender, they feel neither "male" or "female" but perhaps feel that they would be more comfortable, or better represented currently, by a body of the opposite gender.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

And you think wrong, anyway. I know countless transfolk who act fitting no stereotype, simply in a way that makes them most comfortable. And in fact a large number of transfolk do not just feel like the opposite gender, they feel neither "male" or "female" but perhaps feel that they would be more comfortable, or better represented currently, by a body of the opposite gender.
Also, it really fucks me off when people born into male bodies living out the male gender role, or people born into female bodies living the female gender role, lecture trans people for not doing everything they can to utterly demolish gender roles right this instant. Grow a beard and shave your legs, then you can lecture people about acting as stereotypical females or males.

[black magick hustla]

Also, it really fucks me off when people born into male bodies living out the male gender role, or people born into female bodies living the female gender role, lecture trans people for not doing everything they can to utterly demolish gender roles right this instant. Grow a beard and shave your legs, then you can lecture people about acting as stereotypical females or males.

the point is that i dont claim i am a female in a mans body, which is an incoherent and essentialist claim

[Agrippa]

Also, it really fucks me off when people born into male bodies living out the male gender role, or people born into female bodies living the female gender role, lecture trans people for not doing everything they can to utterly demolish gender roles right this instant. Grow a beard and shave your legs, then you can lecture people about acting as stereotypical females or males.

But my point is that the "transitioning" paradigm in regards to the "genderqueer" question only serves to make the existence of third-gendered people more palatable to the "gender-straight", (be they hetero- or homosexual) at the consequence of third-gendered people's physical and mental well-being.

Talking about "men born in women's bodies" and 'women born in men's bodies", to me, treats the third-gendered as if they were a mistake, a deformity, an example of of a cruel God, or a God drunk at the wheel. In my mind, third-gendered people obsessed with "transitioning" have bought into heteronormative ideas about gender (such as that you can't be a woman and also have a penis, or a man and also have a vagina, or that women and men have to look a certain way, that having a flat chest or a large nose or more body hair is less feminine) in much the same way that black people who think their brown skin, broad noses, whooly hair, etc. is less attractive than that of a white person's. Obviously the capitalists make a profit when the black person gives in and gets rhinoplasty, irons her hair straight, etc. Why is it any different for third-gendered people?

[Lynx]

In the case of intersex individuals, isn't this usually decided by parents soon after birth?

[Atrus]

In the case of intersex individuals, isn't this usually decided by parents soon after birth?

In the case of hermaphroditic individuals, yeah, normally the parents decide then they're operated on. However, in the majority of these cases only one set of sex organs actually work, so it's normally to have the organs that don't work removed.
In cases where both organs work and the parents decide, I know that I'd be pretty pissed when I found out that they'd chosen for me, but I don't know what other approach can be taken until society accepts non-binary gender systems, because even if neither set of organs was removed, everything expects a child to be one gender or the other, from an age before they could make the decision themselves.

[Dr Mindbender]

But my point is that the "transitioning" paradigm in regards to the "genderqueer" question only serves to make the existence of third-gendered people more palatable to the "gender-straight", (be they hetero- or homosexual) at the consequence of third-gendered people's physical and mental well-being.

Talking about "men born in women's bodies" and 'women born in men's bodies", to me, treats the third-gendered as if they were a mistake, a deformity, an example of of a cruel God, or a God drunk at the wheel. In my mind, third-gendered people obsessed with "transitioning" have bought into heteronormative ideas about gender (such as that you can't be a woman and also have a penis, or a man and also have a vagina, or that women and men have to look a certain way, that having a flat chest or a large nose or more body hair is less feminine) in much the same way that black people who think their brown skin, broad noses, whooly hair, etc. is less attractive than that of a white person's. Obviously the capitalists make a profit when the black person gives in and gets rhinoplasty, irons her hair straight, etc. Why is it any different for third-gendered people?

How many more times, gender reconstruction and external aesthetics/ cosmetics are NOT analagous!

Biological gender identity is something determined by nature at birth. TS's psychologically associate their biological gender with the biological roles associated with the genitals they were born with. This is what causes such great distress. Capitalism has nothing to do with this relationship in the way that they convince us about asinine aesthetic norms.

Its interesting to see how many bio-conservatives are coming out of the woodwork. Don't hit your heads on the way down to OI.

:mad:

[Agrippa]

How many more times, gender reconstruction and external aesthetics/ cosmetics are NOT analagous!

But you're ignoring my central argument, which is that (with the obvious exception of harmful or uncomfortable genital deformities such as hypospadius) "gender reconstruction" (which often includes not only genital modification, but, in the case of transwomen, breast implants) shares much in common with cosmetic surgery, in that they are both needs that have been created by the unique batch of anxieties and social pressures created by life under capitalist (and other patriachial) societies.

Let's say I'm born a quote-unquote "male" with small breasts, a two-inch penis, full hips, undescended testicles, and other signs of high-estrogen/low-testosterone. Let's say that I decide that instead of being a "hormone imbalance" or some other malady in need of "curing", that I am a mostly-female hermaphrodite with some male characteristics. Why should I want to erradicate my male characteristics (such as mutilating my penis-like genitals in an attempt to create a vagina) in order to feel more female?

To me, this is essentially a cultural genocide of hermaphrodites, and anyone else who doesn't fit into rigid male and female categories.

I think it's healthier for people to accept that, regardless of how "freaky" or socially unacceptable their bodies are, that their bodies are natural, healthy, and beautiful, and that they should feel comfortable in them, and proud of them.

For the sake of full disclosure: I am not third gendered, I am a bisexual male. But I still have an opinion on the issue, for reasons I do not wish to go into with strangers on the Internet.


Biological gender identity is something determined by nature at birth. TS's psychologically associate their biological gender with the biological roles associated with the genitals they were born with.Yes. And this is a consequence of society, which teaches (incorrectly) that the nature of ones genitals of all thing is the primary deciding factor of sex or gender, rather than, say, hormones, or the gender-role one adopts in society. So the solution is to change society, not the genitals or hormones of third-gendered people.


Capitalism has nothing to do with this relationshipAs a disciple of Marx, I disagree.


Its interesting to see how many bio-conservatives are coming out of the woodwork.I'm not denying that my opinions are conservative. Our job is not to determine which position is most conservative. Our job is to determine which position offers genderqueer people, who you think of as "transexual" and I think of as "third-gendered", the most freedom.

From my perspective, mine does, because it still grants individuals the autonomy to have whatever surgery performed on their bodies they wish, while also recognizing that third-gendered people are natural and healthy the way they are born and don't need to be "cured" with unnessecary, invasive surgery or dangerously powerful synthetic hormones.


Don't hit your heads on the way down to OI.

:mad:You wouldn't be the first one to threaten to send me to OI. And I haven't been exiled yet. I think there are too many Commie Club members amused by my antics for that.


In the case of intersex individuals, isn't this usually decided by parents soon after birth?Yes, but most third-gendered people view this as an act of cruel, invoulentary castraton, and therefore systematic patriarchal oppression. I myself am not third-gendered but male, and as a male, I am very strongly opposed to the genital-mutalitation of male children, (ie: circumcision) because, having foreskin, I can imagine what it's like not to have foreskin, and would prefer to have foreskin, and would prefer other people to have the choice of having foreskin. Communism by its very nature abhors all forms of child genital mutilation, for obvious reasons.

[Led Zeppelin]

Geez. I already quoted you historical examples where the argument of brains was used for shitty political opinions.

Erm, gender is not simply determined by "shape of brains" but by a lot of other biological factors as well.

Females when they are born have egg-cells, while men do not. This is a biological fact. But this fact alone determines the entire shape of the brain being different and acting different.

See, in men the hypophysis stimulates testosterone which in turn causes the testes to produce sperm-cells, while in women the estrogen from the hypophysis causes them to ovulate.

This is all a result of the "different brain shape". It's just a fact that the brains of women and men are shaped differently, so I have no clue why you would want to deny it or obscure that fact.

So biologically, there is clearly a difference between men and women, and in the way their brains are formed and act (only in some areas of course, like the one I described above, in other areas they function exactly the same or very similarly, like, say, seeing things with your eyes and how that is processed in the brain).

That definitely has an effect on the personality and ability of people. Some are able to learn mathematics better than others, which is not just a distinction between males and females but is so "intergenderly" as well.

Denying these facts because some social Darwinist or reactionaries used the same scientific basis to draw false (and unscientific) conclusions, is pretty pointless. It's not even an argument. Either prove that it is not so by providing scientific facts to counter the scientific facts that state it is so, or admit that you are wrong.

That issue is dealt with.

Now, gender personalities. Yes, it is true that in current society gender is mostly presented as a binary thing. Either you are one or the other, but that line is blurring. Can it be "blurred" entirely? Well, no, not really, because biology won't allow it to "blur" beyond a certain point. In the same manner you could say that the person who has the better disposition biologically to learn mathematics will almost always be more advanced than the one who doesn't at all (or even has a impairment of it). While the latter can try to catch up with the former by practicing, if the amount of "practice" is equal to the amount of "practice" done by the former, he will almost always be better at it than the latter, due to his biological disposition (this function specifically is related to brain-shape, by the way).

One simple scientific fact to demonstrate this; Men are physically stronger than women on average. This is due to many biological reasons, one of which is the higher production of testosterone in men. Women can be stronger by working out, but we are talking "on average" here. Then again, if the woman does become stronger apparently they are trying to be something they're not according to you, because they want to fit in the opposite gender role...

No, not only do women and men think differently, women and women and men and men think differently. Not all men "like cars" and not all women "hate cars". There are women who like cars and men who hate them. Artificial gender roles tell us differently, but in such matters they are irrelevant.

We agree on the artificiality of most elements of gender personalities. But a man knows that he is a man. He knows he is supposed to have a penis and not a vagina, that is, a male reproductive organ as opposed to a female reproductive organ, and vice versa with women. They know this and are "comfortable" with it. It is like the knee-reflex; it just is. Science goes beyond this however and explains why it is, just as it explains how the knee-reflex works.

The crux of the matter is not just "the shape of the brain", but also the functionality of the brain. Hell, you can even go further than that and arrive at the functionality of separate brain cells, chromosomes, genes, DNA.

Here's a report from last year identifying the "transsexuality gene": Transsexual gene link identified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm).

Now of course people who have grown up in a binary gender-based society filled with artificial gender stereotypes are influenced by them. How the hell could they not be? Aren't you influenced by them? Do you ever wear dresses or panties? No? Then you're ascribing to an artificial gender role and are being weird!

Let's not be ridiculous. They are influenced by them just as you and me are (though hopefully both of us are influenced by them to a much lesser extent than most because we are more critically minded people). So when a transgendered man or a transgendered woman does things to fit in the artificial gender role of the opposite sex, they do so for the same reason both of us don't wear dresses or panties. It is a manifestation of what they perceive to be their true gender, and it's absurd for anyone to criticize them for it while practically everyone is under the influence of it in current society.

That is all.

[black magick hustla]

{quote}This is all a result of the "different brain shape". It's just a fact that the brains of women and men are shaped differently, so I have no clue why you would want to deny it or obscure that fact.{/quote}

I am not denying ¨different brain shape¨. I am denying the hypothesis that the shape of the brain determines these identities. Its not a different claim from the one that women are born to cook and do housework because of brainshape. This essentialist claims are unscientific. What is scientific is that there is different brain shapes. The essentialist claims of gender and human nature are not scientific and they stand on a very tenuous *correlation* (As trying to correlate cranium shape with IQ, because it is true for example that black folks have lower IQ in average than white folks but it has nothing to do with the physicality of their brain).




Denying these facts because some social Darwinist or reactionaries used the same scientific basis to draw false (and unscientific) conclusions, is pretty pointless. It's not even an argument. Either prove that it is not so by providing scientific facts to counter the scientific facts that state it is so, or admit that you are wrong.

I dont have to provide "scientific facts" because ¨the whole idea of transgender folks being transgender because of the physicality of the brain is not a valid proposition at all. Just because you claim that the social darwinist claims are "unscientific" because they dont fit your political viewpoint doesnt change the fact that the methodology is the same as the one you are using.Racialists looked for physical correlation with "intelligence" and they found it. If you tell me why your proposition is more valid than theirs (beyond what scientists might say, because these scientists are not dong science, they are doing philosophy) this might be more interesting. So the issue is not ¨dealt with", just read this: http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/sexracebrainsand288


But a man knows that he is a man. He knows he is supposed to have a penis and not a vagina, that is, a male reproductive organ as opposed to a female reproductive organ, and vice versa with women. They know this and are "comfortable" with it.

I dont see how this is different from emotionally traumatized girls looking for cosmetic surgeries they do not need. Both of their distress are real. The only difference is that nobody assigns a "physical element" to the former.


Now of course people who have grown up in a binary gender-based society filled with artificial gender stereotypes are influenced by them. How the hell could they not be? Aren't you influenced by them? Do you ever wear dresses or panties? No? Then you're ascribing to an artificial gender role and are being weird!

The issue is not that. The issue is that saying that¨"I am a man inside a woman" or viceversa is incoherent. Because beyond having testies or a vagina, what does entail being a woman or a man. It is like saying I am a white man inside a brown man. It makes no sense unless there are fixed categories of maleness or whiteness.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am not denying ¨different brain shape¨. I am denying the hypothesis that the shape of the brain determines these identities.

It determines a lot of things. It determines how good you are at math, or how good you are at understanding and processing certain bits of information. It also partly determines whether you identify as a female or male.

This is not "a claim", it is a scientific fact. You seem to have little knowledge of biology so I'll forgive you on that score, but a quick google search would've told you this stuff as well: Male/Female brain differences (http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69)


Its not a different claim from the one that women are born to cook and do housework because of brainshape.

It's not a claim, first of all, it's a fact.

Secondly, you are once again trying to obfuscate the issue we are discussing. You did the same thing with Demogorgon and bcbm but I'm not going to let myself be immersed in the same nonsense.

I clearly said that the differences in brain shapes, composition and processes of men and women are not the sole cause of differences between the female and male genders. I also clearly said that gender roles like "cooking" or "doing housework" are artificial, in that the physiology of the brain and of the human body itself has got nothing to do with determining such things.

That doesn't mean that people don't buy into such artificial gender roles. They are affected by it because it is society in which they grow up. That is why people try to fit themselves into gender roles, not because the shape of their brains tell them to.

So it's not the same argument at all. Stop trying to make it sound the same.


This essentialist claims are unscientific.

Well, no, it's pure science. If you think it isn't then you are just horrible at basic biology.


What is scientific is that there is different brain shapes. The essentialist claims of gender and human nature are not scientific and they stand on a very tenuous *correlation* (As trying to correlate cranium shape with IQ, because it is true for example that black folks have lower IQ in average than white folks but it has nothing to do with the physicality of their brain).

Correlating cranium shape with IQ doesn't work. It has been proven not to work.

But that is beside the point. You are of course trying to obfuscate the issue here as you did above with the whole; "social Darwinists and racists use the same arguments!" nonsense.

The same doesn't apply, because no one here ever said anything about the different brain shapes, processes etc. of women and men determining their intelligence. It does determine other things however, in some parts.

I mean, seriously, did you not even take basic biology in school? Do you not know that the brain itself as an organ plays a key part in the development of initial and secondary outward gender traits, such as the growing of breasts, developing a higher-pitched voice, bigger thighs on women etc. etc.?

Also, it's not just the brain that determines gender, it's the entire physiology of the human body.


I dont have to provide "scientific facts"

Because you can't.


because ¨the whole idea of transgender folks being transgender because of the physicality of the brain is not a valid proposition at all.

Well, no, it's not just the physiology of the brain. Did you not see the link I posted?

Here, I'll link you to it again: Transsexual gene link identified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm).


Just because you claim that the social darwinist claims are "unscientific" because they dont fit your political viewpoint doesnt change the fact that the methodology is the same as the one you are using.Racialists looked for physical correlation with "intelligence" and they found it.

Oh my, they found it? Really?

Tell me which scientist where found that black people or people of other ethnicities are less intelligent than white people using science. Go on, you claimed that they were able to do so, now prove it.

It would be quite amazing if you could of course, because it would fly in the face of practiced science of the past half century at the least.

But go ahead, amuse me.


If you tell me why your proposition is more valid than theirs (beyond what scientists might say, because these scientists are not dong science, they are doing philosophy) this might be more interesting.

I don't care about scientists "who are doing philosophy". The facts are the facts. When for example it is shown that: "While men have more neurons in the cerebral cortex, women have a more developed neuropil, or the space between cell bodies, which contains synapses, dendrites and axons, and allows for communication among neurons", it is a fact that is demonstrable.

Do you want me to explain how they come to these conclusions? It involves using scanning equipment, women and men. Oh, and knowing what the hell you're talking about as a biologist or physician.


I dont see how this is different from emotionally traumatized girls looking for cosmetic surgeries they do not need. Both of their distress are real. The only difference is that nobody assigns a "physical element" to the former.

An emotionally traumatized girl looking for cosmetic surgeries she doesn't need does so probably because she is emotionally traumatized....

Yeah, a shitload of people get plastic surgery these days for a host of reasons. Many of them do so to become more attractive, or to get rid of a sort of physical "deformity". A lot of them do so because they want to look better.

For a lot of these people you may say that it is not necessary. Like if a woman wants to get a breast enlargement, you'd probably be like the typical moral conservative and exclaim; "Why are you being so essentialist? Be glad with what you have, you are acting like an emotionally traumatized girl!".

That's fine and all but I really couldn't give less of a shit about that. If she wants to do it, then fine, let her do it. She probably wants to do it though because she was brought up in a society which enticed her to do it. That is capitalist society and there's no point in me explaining how society does this "enticing".

What does this have to do with a person who is physiologically, that is, internally, a female, and wants to externalize it and become one physically?

Of course you can't comprehend this because you are looking it from a flawed perspective. You think it's merely a static fact. Penis = man. Vagina = woman. For a person who's so anti binary gender roles you do play into them a lot in your positions.

The correct perspective is to look at it from the point of view of the person. You now identify yourself as a male and you were lucky enough to have a penis as well. Great job. Now what if you had a female body? Would you just "be a woman"? You think you could because it's all "mind over matter" with you (talk about abstract metaphysical nonsense...) but it's not that easy. Biology has the last word, I'm sorry.

By the way, on this point, hermaphrodites are an interesting example. They are born with both genders. Sometimes the parents choose the gender of their child, by asking the doctors to operate on them.

Now, on occasion, the child grows up and identifies as a male. Their parents however had determined that the child should be a female. Since gender identity is not at all determined by physiology, why would the child identify as a male rather than as a female? It had both genders, did the child just "choose the wrong one to be"?

If you think people can choose their gender identity there's not much hope. Do they also choose their sexual preference or am I being "essentialist" when I say they don't?


The issue is not that. The issue is that saying that¨"I am a man inside a woman" or viceversa is incoherent. Because beyond having testies or a vagina, what does entail being a woman or a man.

What does it take to be a man or a woman besides a vagina or penis? Are you even serious right now? Am I supposed to reply to you seriously at this point?

Can you please do me a favor and go out tomorrow in a dress, and put on make-up as well? Could you also wear panties and talk in a higher-pitched voice than you usually do?

While you're at it, claim that you are "acting like a man" and see how your environment reacts to that.

There goes your ridiculous abstract "theory".

As I explained in my previous post, a lot of gender roles are artificial. Men like cars, women don't. Men like sports, women don't. Men wear pants, women wear dresses. This is all bullshit, obviously, but to most people it isn't. One is tied to one gender and the other is tied to the other gender. That is the society we live in today and we are all affected by it, including you and me.

That is why transsexuals want to "become themselves", not just through participating in the opposite gender role, but by physically changing themselves to fit it as well.

You say it's just vagina's and penises, well then why not have the person who consider himself to be a male get a penis or vice versa? Will that satisfy your ridiculous moral need of some "balance"?

The truth of the matter is that while you proclaim gender roles to be meaningless in order to attack transsexuals, you at the same time ascribe by gender roles in your daily life. This is why the hypocrisy of your position is astounding.


It is like saying I am a white man inside a brown man. It makes no sense unless there are fixed categories of maleness or whiteness

It's not like saying that you are a person of a certain race trapped in the body of another race at all. You know why? Because there is no such thing as "race identity" physiologically.

That is entirely socially constructed. Biology doesn't determine black people to internally be a certain way as opposed to white people.

Obviously the same is not the case with gender, otherwise women wouldn't have ovaries and men wouldn't have testes, and estrogen and testosterone production wouldn't have made a difference in either (see the above article I posted, it shows the link between the gene determining testosterone production and transsexuality from women to men).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm not denying that my opinions are conservative. Our job is not to determine which position is most conservative. Our job is to determine which position offers genderqueer people, who you think of as "transexual" and I think of as "third-gendered", the most freedom.

From my perspective, mine does, because it still grants individuals the autonomy to have whatever surgery performed on their bodies they wish, while also recognizing that third-gendered people are natural and healthy the way they are born and don't need to be "cured" with unnessecary, invasive surgery or dangerously powerful synthetic hormones.

Why do the existence of third-gendered/genderqueer people and "genuine" transfolk have to be mutually exclusive, tho? As you readily admit, humans are a wonderfully complex and diverse bunch, and not easy to fit into rigid categories. So instead of narrowing it down to "everyone should get sex changes" (well, maybe not literally everyone, but you know what I mean" or "trans folk are actually third-gendered and should never have surgery", why not just say that some trans folk will fit with your third-gendered schema and not need surgery, and some won't?
I also think that there's a danger of these arguments turning into angels-on-a-pin scholasticism. In actually existing society, rigid gender roles exist, deviation from these roles is punished, and anyone actually choosing to have gender reassignment surgery is going to face a massive amount of prejudice; the basic starting point has to be to defend their autonomy, all else is secondary.

[Agrippa]

Why do the existence of third-gendered/genderqueer people and "genuine" transfolk have to be mutually exclusive, tho?

I don't really take the term "genderqueer" seriously, anymore, since pathetic heterosexual males like Chuck Munson now also identify as "genderqueer" to sound cool. I believe that there are men and women, and also "genuine transfolk" - which includes those who are both male and female, those who are neither male nor female, those whose gender fluctuates, etc.

Thus, my argument is not about the existence or non-existence of "genuine transfolk". My argument is about questioning the paradigm, embraced by both trannies and "gender-straight" folks, that trannies are "trapped in the wrong body", and also expressing my skepticism with the medical necessity of genital reconstruction surgery and other drastic measures. Obviously I support anyone's right to modify their body in any way, but I'm also allowed to have an opinion on whether or not I think it's safe.


As you readily admit, humans are a wonderfully complex and diverse bunch, and not easy to fit into rigid categories. So instead of narrowing it down to "everyone should get sex changes" (well, maybe not literally everyone, but you know what I mean" or "trans folk are actually third-gendered and should never have surgery", why not just say that some trans folk will fit with your third-gendered schema and not need surgery, and some won't?My position is that anyone who can get their hands on animal hormones, and wants to take them, should have the freedom to do so. Anyone who wants to hire a surgeon to modify their genitals in any way can do so. I would never want to do any of these things because I'm too paranoid to get facial peiercings or take Asparin. I also know plenty of third-gendered people who feel the exact same way.


I also think that there's a danger of these arguments turning into angels-on-a-pin scholasticism. In actually existing society, rigid gender roles exist, deviation from these roles is punished, and anyone actually choosing to have gender reassignment surgery is going to face a massive amount of prejudice;Obviously I support them in that respect 110%. A third-gendered person with genital reconstruction surgery is as oppressed as one without. But I'm still not convinced that genital reconstruction surgery and synthetic hormones are the safest answer.


the basic starting point has to be to defend their autonomy, all else is secondary.Well, I will defend anyone's bodily autonomy. People should even be allowed to get unnessecary cosmetic surgery, as long as there's no chance of environmental pollution. But I still feel there is a debate as to whether or not genital reconstruction surgery is the safest treatment for those who have difficulty fitting into the categories of "male" and "female", especially given that so much of that difficulty is the result of the hyper-rigid gender roles of our patriarchal society.

[black magick hustla]

ledzep, you are pulling a bobkindles on me. I am sorry but I am not going to reply until you stop doing that.

[bcbm]

in that they are both needs that have been created by the unique batch of anxieties and social pressures created by life under capitalist (and other patriachial) societies.

Transpeople aren't unique to modern society.

[Agrippa]

Transpeople aren't unique to modern society.

No, but gender reconstruction surgery is.

To my knowledge, there is no pre-modern medical tradition that reccomends genital surgery as a treatment for trans/third-gendered folk.

That in of itself is not a reason to ban the practice. But I do think political correctness and peoples' desires should be set aside for an objective analysis of the physical health of genital modification. It may turn out to be totally benign, but it also may turn out to have unintended negative medical consequences.

[Lynx]

transgendered (adjective) (comparative more transgendered, superlative most transgendered)

1. Describing a person of one sex who considers himself or herself to really belong to the opposite sex, or who wishes to be surgically converted to the opposite sex, or has been so converted.

intersex (noun) (plural intersexes)

1. (biology) An individual (in a dioecious species) having characteristics of both sexes.

* 1955, Curt Stern, , page 374:
Conversely, a fertilized egg with one X-chromosome would develop not into a male but into an intersex

* 2008, Emine Saner, The Guardian, 30 Jul 2008, G2, p. 12:

It is thought that around one in 1,000 babies are born with an "intersex" condition, the general term for people with chromosomal abnormalities.

Usage notes:

* Recently the term intersex has been preferred to hermaphrodite as being more politically correct.

[Jazzratt]

No, but gender reconstruction surgery is.

Poor eyesight is not unnatural. Glasses, contact lenses and laser surgey are.


To my knowledge, there is no pre-modern medical tradition that reccomends genital surgery as a treatment for trans/third-gendered folk.

Yeah, so? Pre-modern medical traditions are shite. What possible relevance does the opinion of people bereft of a lot of pertinent information have?


That in of itself is not a reason to ban the practice. But I do think political correctness and peoples' desires should be set aside for an objective analysis of the physical health of genital modification. It may turn out to be totally benign, but it also may turn out to have unintended negative medical consequences.

Well I'm sure one of the many people that have successfully undergone such treament would be aware of the "unintended negative medical consquences".

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I don't really take the term "genderqueer" seriously, anymore, since pathetic heterosexual males like Chuck Munson now also identify as "genderqueer" to sound cool.
Don't know him, so can't comment.

I believe that there are men and women, and also "genuine transfolk" - which includes those who are both male and female, those who are neither male nor female, those whose gender fluctuates, etc.
That's not what I was saying. You're using "genuine transfolk" and your concept of "third-gendered" as the same thing. I'd consider "third-gender" to be "those who are both male and female, those who are neither male nor female, those whose gender fluctuates, etc", and "genuine transfolk" to be people born into one biological sex that identify with the opposite gender role. Identifying with a specific gender role is not the same thing as identifying with both gender roles, or with neither. Without wanting to get too personal, I'm sure there are people who identify as third-gender who wouldn't benefit at all from surgery. That's fine. But (without wanting to get too personal here, especially about other people's lives) I do also know transmen who are familiar with queer theory, the anarchist critique of gender, and all the rest of it, but still see themselves as men, not as third-gender. Saying that they must be wrong and they're just third-gender people with false consciousness seems not that much more helpful than saying they must be wrong and they're just mixed-up women.

[Agrippa]

Poor eyesight is not unnatural.

Actually, in many cases it is.


Glasses, contact lenses and laser surgey are.

The disadvantages of contact lenses and laser surgery can outweigh the benefits. However, I am in no way against the crafting and using of eye-glasses. :laugh::rolleyes:


Pre-modern medical traditions are shite.

Are you a medical expert or are you just offering your obscenity-laden, uninformed opinion for the sake of your own public embarassment?


What possible relevance does the opinion of people bereft of a lot of pertinent information have?

Is this a comment on your own intellectual state-of-being? Because it should be. :D


Well I'm sure one of the many people that have successfully undergone such treament would be aware of the "unintended negative medical consquences".

And many of them are!


Don't know him

Administrator of Infoshop.org


That's not what I was saying. You're using "genuine transfolk" and your concept of "third-gendered"as the same thing.

Yes, because I think the "trannsexual"/"transgendered" paradigm is just modern society's way of perceiving those who fall outside the gender binary.


I'd consider "third-gender" to be "those who are both male and female, those who are neither male nor female, those whose gender fluctuates, etc", and "genuine transfolk" to be people born into one biological sex that identify with the opposite gender role. Identifying with a specific gender role is not the same thing as identifying with both gender roles, or with neither.

But being critical of gender binary, or a good political ally to queers does not mean agreeing 100% with the intellectual theories that predominate the queer-activism communities. The idea of social gender and biological sex as atomized concepts, to me, is not a very solid intellectual premise. Neither is the strict division between biological and sociological/psychological that's implicit in discussions of members of one "biological sex" fulfilling the social "gender roles" of another sex. The vast majority of self-identified transwomen and transmen that I've had personal relationships were born with obvious physiological differences from "average" males and females, respectively, so to refer to them as "biological males" and "biological females" who are merely socially female and male, respectively, is, in my opinion, inaccurate.


I do also know transmen who are familiar with queer theory, the anarchist critique of gender, and all the rest of it, but still see themselves as men, not as third-gender.

I don't want to speculate on the psychological motivation of your friends, but something I've noticed about a lot of my trans friends is that they tend to subconsciously repress or downplay their male (if they're transwomen) or female (if they're transmen) characteristics, possibly as a consequence of being denied any legitimacy as females (in the case of transwomen) or males (in the case of transmen) by the patriarchal society they were raised in.

I believe that, because sex/gender is as social as it is biological, all of us have social characteristics that are male, and those that are female. It's all just a matter of what our male-to-female ratio is.


Saying that they must be wrong and they're just third-gender people with false consciousness seems not that much more helpful than saying they must be wrong and they're just mixed-up women.

You're putting words in my mouth. The only thing I possibly implied was "false" about certain transfolks' consciousness is the social pressure put on them (just as it is put on women) by our patriarchal society to modify their physiological appearence with surgery and pharmacuticals to conform to one end or the other of the gender binary. As I have said, I still think people have a ight to do this, but I'm still not convinced it's the safest option.

The vast majority of people have "false consciousness", not just transfolk...

[Jazzratt]

Actually, in many cases it is.

Are you trying tyo see how much of a mindless goon you can sound?



The disadvantages of contact lenses and laser surgery can outweigh the benefits. However, I am in no way against the crafting and using of eye-glasses. :laugh::rolleyes:

But it's unnatural. I thought you wanted to go back to an age where people knew fuck all about medicine - especially precision-crafted eyeglasses and so on.


Are you a medical expert or are you just offering your obscenity-laden, uninformed opinion for the sake of your own public embarassment?

How did pre-modern medicine deal with cancer, then, you ****?


Is this a comment on your own intellectual state-of-being? Because it should be. :D

The practioners of pre-modern medicine were bereft of pertinent information, dolt. Everything from microscopic pathogens, to human cellular structure to basic neurology. And you expect to look to these people for the answer to something as complex as transgendered people?


And many of them are!


Quote me some of these many then instead of sitting about blowing smoke out of your arse.

[black magick hustla]

The disadvantages of contact lenses and laser surgery can outweigh the benefits. However, I am in no way against the crafting and using of eye-glasses. :laugh::rolleyes:

As someone who has used contact lenses since I was 9, and as someone who is legally blind to the point of vision blurring at the one foot range, to the point that glasses just wont do the job, I can tell you you are being a goddamn ignorant luddite. Go pray to the soul of the earth while we folks who hold a new world in the heart are already thinking about reaching the stars.

This type of shitty new age thinking offers absolutely nothing.

[Sentinel]

Have you, by any chance, noticed the thread on transphobia guidelines in the CC Marmot? :)

I am very interested in some feedback from you..

[black magick hustla]

Have you, by any chance, noticed the thread on transphobia guidelines in the CC Marmot? :)

I am very interested in some feedback from you..

pm them to me, I cant read the cc from this computer for some reason. Hence why I have not posted in the CC for a while.

[Demogorgon]

Let's say I'm born a quote-unquote "male" with small breasts, a two-inch penis, full hips, undescended testicles, and other signs of high-estrogen/low-testosterone. Let's say that I decide that instead of being a "hormone imbalance" or some other malady in need of "curing", that I am a mostly-female hermaphrodite with some male characteristics. Why should I want to erradicate my male characteristics (such as mutilating my penis-like genitals in an attempt to create a vagina) in order to feel more female?

Well if you identified as third gender then you obviously may very well not want to change your genitals under such circumstances. Of course were your biological features fully male or fully female you might very well want to alter some aspects of yourself should you identify as third gender. And similarly should you have the physical characteristics you describe but identify as fully male or fully female again you might wish to make a change.

I agree with you that not everyone fits neatly into the binary model of gender, hell that is one of the main arguments in favour of trans-rights! However I am struggling to see why you think the existence of the third gender somehow invalidates the need for transgendered people who are NOT third gender to physically transition. It is true that certain historical cultures lumped all transgendered people in as third sex, but that just shows a misunderstanding of the concept. Some transgendered people are but, probably, the majority are not.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

Who cares about what people want to do with ther sexuality.If it bothers you that much then worry about your own first.

[Agrippa]

Are you trying tyo see how much of a mindless goon you can sound?

Are you denying that eye problems can't be the cause of environmental factors such as over-exposure to light pollution, CRT monitors, etc.?


But it's unnatural. I thought you wanted to go back to an age where people knew fuck all about medicineWhen did I say that?


How did pre-modern medicine deal with cancer, then, you ****?Wow, obscene language in lieu of rational argument.
Pre-modern medicine may actually be more effective at treating cancer than capitalist medicine. Tuberculosis, on the other hand...


The practioners of pre-modern medicine were bereft of pertinent information, dolt.Again, more nasty names instead of coherent, rational, respectful debate. Stop acting like a juvenile.


Everything from microscopic pathogens, to human cellular structure to basic neurology.You don't need to be able to read the word "bathroom" to know how to take a shit....


And you expect to look to these people for the answer to something as complex as transgendered people? I don't think that all information that was collected and research that was conducted before the European Enlightenment was totally worthless, and needs to be destroyed in the global Cultural Revolution, if that's what you mean....


As someone who has used contact lenses since I was 9, and as someone who is legally blind to the point of vision blurring at the one foot range, to the point that glasses just wont do the jobIt's not that big of a deal for me, because I'm sure the amount of energy consumed, and the amount of ecological devastation created to produce contact lenses is very minimal...I can definitely imagine contact lenses being produced in a post-capitalist society. (That doesn't mean, however, that we must also produce Playstations and food processors) In the mean time anyone who needs contact lenses should obviously just go ahead and use them. But on a pragmatic level, as the capitalist infrastructure crumbles. those of us who need contact lenses or other industrial medicine must prepare for the day when we can't just drop on over to the CVS and pick it up. This has less to do with"Luddite" (of course you technocrats insult people by comparing them to members of the legitimate communist tradition) moralism but pragmatic concern.

But as far as moral justificatons for the emergence and perpetuation of industial civilization as a whole go go, where do we draw the line? Sure it's great that you can see, and you'd probably be blind without industrialism, but do benefits for a few outweigh the suffering and hell created for the majority? Plenty of people lead fully satisfying lives being totally blind. But I do think it's wonderful that your eyesight is a happenstantial positive development of capitalist material circumstances.


However I am struggling to see why you think the existence of the third gender somehow invalidates the need for transgendered people who are NOT third gender to physically transition.All I'm arguing is that the politics have been skewed by the capitalist heternormative/patriarchal psychological/psychiatric establishment's treatment of gender-variance as a psychological disorder in need of curing, rather than a normal biological variation with both psychological and physiological characteristics. As I've said, I've already supported anyone's personal autonomy in regards to "physically transitioning", I just personally do not believe that's it's healthy to "force" a sexual transition (I do think some people naturally fluctuate and transition back and forth between male and female throughout a lifetime or even seasons and phases of the moon) out of desire to conform to social expectations.

[black magick hustla]

It's not that big of a deal for me, because I'm sure the amount of energy consumed, and the amount of ecological devastation created to produce contact lenses is very minimal...I can definitely imagine contact lenses being produced in a post-capitalist society. (That doesn't mean, however, that we must also produce Playstations and food processors) In the mean time anyone who needs contact lenses should obviously just go ahead and use them. But on a pragmatic level, as the capitalist infrastructure crumbles. those of us who need contact lenses or other industrial medicine must prepare for the day when we can't just drop on over to the CVS and pick it up. This has less to do with"Luddite" (of course you technocrats insult people by comparing them to members of the legitimate communist tradition) moralism but pragmatic concern.

But as far as moral justificatons for the emergence and perpetuation of industial civilization as a whole go go, where do we draw the line? Sure it's great that you can see, and you'd probably be blind without industrialism, but do benefits for a few outweigh the suffering and hell created for the majority? Plenty of people lead fully satisfying lives being totally blind. But I do think it's wonderful that your eyesight is a happenstantial positive development of capitalist material circumstances.


My protest has nothing to do with technocracy, because I am not a technocrat. The demand of medical technology to be available for everyone has always been a hallmark of the labour movement. The shitty anti-industrialists ideology of american anarcho-hipsters is a new phenomenon and a product of the dislocation of social relations in modern, decomposing capitalism. You are essentially accusing someone of being a technocrat for just being a traditional communist.

The whole talk of "satisfaction" is the talk of the ruling class. You might as well start preaching at workers that they should be satisfied for being alive. Or at some mechanic that lost his fingers and didnt have insurance that he should be satisfied. It reeks of reactionary conservatism if nothing else.

[Jazzratt]

Wow, obscene language in lieu of rational argument.
Pre-modern medicine may actually be more effective at treating cancer than capitalist medicine.


These two setntences proved that you know fuck all about anything. The first shows that you think style-over-substance ad hominems are kosher and the second proves that you're either a delusional fucking moron or an absolutely evil shit. The choice is yours.

Pre-modern medicine may have been beter with the old placebos to help cancer sufferers feel better in their terminal years but it's only modern medicine that can really do anything for it. You'd know that if you had any idea about cancer rather than sitting on the sidelines cheering on alternative medicine hyenas like the cowardly little fuck you are.

[Abc]

of course transgenderism sould not be allowed! why? because it insults my own masculinty and makes makes me question my own black and white view of the world when i would much rather just pass transgendered people off as freaks and not have to use my brain

[ev]

Technology will eventually solve this shit, I'd imagine in the future we'll be able to alter people genes to give them a body that matches their mind.. Until then, we need to accept people for how they are - through no fault of their own I might add. We are no better than transgendered people and should show some sympathy for their situation, not ostracize them as freaks and socially segregate them!

But I'm sure our politicians know best.. :rolleyes:

[Raisa]

If we are advocating a society where the money is used for the greater good, and there are many people in the world with many disabilities, this is a superficial way of embracing greater good......

I think everyone knows sex chages are a waste of the peoples money, you want to be homosexual and also act like the opposite gender, fine thats your life, but we are in the middle of advocating a society where genetalia isnt supposed to influence the way we are "treated" or have to live, and then at the same time the majority of us are cool with sex changes.

Why?

Its just your body.
Burn victims and cleft lip people should get surgery because it is a natural human reaction to feel AFRAID or UNCOMFORTABLE when you look at a person like that, because it is a sign of discomfort or pain and no one should have to live having people uncomfortable about them all the time if there is cosmetic surgery.

But what is it saying about the society you want if you got to mutilate your genitals in order to be what you want to be in life?

Sex changes are bourgeois decadence, and advocating them is catering to the decadence...its just a trend. No ones trapped in a damn body, their trapped in a sexist situation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If we are advocating a society where the money is used for the greater good, and there are many people in the world with many disabilities, this is a superficial way of embracing greater good......

If it gets peace of mind for those involved, I'm all for it. Part of the greater good is ensuring that people feel comfortable with their own bodies. If that takes surgery then so be it.


I think everyone knows sex chages are a waste of the peoples money, you want to be homosexual and also act like the opposite gender, fine thats your life, but we are in the middle of advocating a society where genetalia isnt supposed to influence the way we are "treated" or have to live, and then at the same time the majority of us are cool with sex changes.

Why?

Its just your body.Exactly, it's your body and you should get to decide what happens to it. The issue goes deeper than mere sexual orientation and gender roles - if that was the case then transsexuals wouldn't exist.


Burn victims and cleft lip people should get surgery because it is a natural human reaction to feel AFRAID or UNCOMFORTABLE when you look at a person like that, because it is a sign of discomfort or pain and no one should have to live having people uncomfortable about them all the time if there is cosmetic surgery.And what about the fear and discomfort faced by those who feel they were born the wrong sex? Doesn't that count?


But what is it saying about the society you want if you got to mutilate your genitals in order to be what you want to be in life?I dunno about you, but it says to me that human sexual biology, as a result of a blind evolutionary process, does not always result in optimum satisfaction for each and every member of the species. I believe that we should apply human ingenuity to address the issue.


Sex changes are bourgeois decadence, and advocating them is catering to the decadence...its just a trend. No ones trapped in a damn body, their trapped in a sexist situation."Bourgeois decadence" is a disgusting moralism that should not belong in revolutionary politics. I've never seen it consistently applied and it seems to be nothing but a politically acceptable (at least on the orthodox Left) way of rejecting things one doesn't like without further thought.

[fiddlesticks]

Comrades, I've got some serious question & arguments about transgendered people: They're people who act (& even physically appear) like their opposite sex. There's MTF & FTM.

Mainly, they take various therapies &/or surgeries. They tend to be stealthy in the general society. For an example: MTF issues. Do comrades regard the MTFs as female or male? Or, in the FTM case: do you regard them as male (as their physical appearance resembles more to men than women) or female?

In my personal point of view, MTFs should be regarded as men & FTMs as females (but I'm not AGAINST transgender/transsexualism). Why?

Until today, sex change is effectively impossible. People are determined their sexes from their genitalia & their sex chromosome. Both of these are unchangeable, according to most medical experts. Although some transgenders had underdone castration, their sex chromosome shall determine their sex. XY is male & XX is female, no matter how does the body appearance looks like...


What do you comrades think?

I think chromosomes determine sex and people determine their own gender.

[Abc]

No ones trapped in a damn body
How do you know this, you are not every person on the face of the planet you dont know how everyone of them feels. also i would like to point out people who are considering having a sex change have to go though many tests done by a psychologist to make sure they really do feel trapped inside there bodys and are not just doing it for fun or some strange fetish

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Burn victims and cleft lip people should get surgery... No ones trapped in a damn body.
Are burn victims, paraplegics and people with cleft lips trapped in their bodies, or not?