What is your view of transgenderism?

[Queercommie Girl]

This is a basic poll to get people's basic views of transgenderism. Polls do not always reflect personal opinion, I remember I once posted a poll about transgenderism on an supposedly "left" Asian American forum (called "Model Minority"), and while 90% of the people who answered the poll apparently supported or partially supported transgenderism, in the same thread were also some of the most viciously transphobic language I've ever seen in my life. However, having a poll is certainly better than nothing.

Personally I am trans and genderqueer myself and I generally support the trans movement and oppose transphobia.

Here are the 5 options:

1) I always support transgenderism - this is if you unconditionally support every instance of transgenderism, no matter what the circumstances.

2) I generally support transgenderism - this is if you generally support most cases of transgenderism that are largely genuine, but there may be certain exceptional cases in which you will not give support, e.g. cases involving drunken heterosexual men who like to cross-dress and harass women in lesbian toilets; cases involving pedophilia; cases involving severe mental illnesses etc. I've ticked this option.

3) I'm not sure/I don't really care - this is if you are largely neutral about the whole issue and don't really have an opinion.

4) Transgenderism is largely misguided - this is if you generally do not agree with transgenderism, but you are also not explicitly transphobic. You just mostly disagree with it on an intellectual level. You might think that the justification that some trans people give for their trans status (brain sex and body sex don't match etc) is scientifically false, or that you think transgenderism largely consolidates rather than challenges the bourgeois gender norms so it is not really a positive thing.

5) Transgenderism is reactionary and wrong - this is if you very explicitly oppose transgenderism and all of its manifestations. You think it is clearly wrong and reactionary, and to some extent even the basic human rights of transgendered people should not really be defended.

Thanks for your answers to this poll.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I always support cases of transgenderism, unconditionally. I don't understand what kind of "circumstances" would make it possible for me to not support it.

Sexuality and gender are individual, adult matters and should be treated with respect in all cases. No one is harmed in transgenderism, and I would imagine that a person would come to more harm, psychologically, if they were unable to have freedom over their gender, body and happiness because people found it "reactionary" or "wrong" or whatever.

I would hope that anyone who stands for the liberation of humanity would feel the same; you cannot stand to liberate society if you do not stand for a human being's right to embrace their own sexuality or gender.

[Queercommie Girl]

I always support cases of transgenderism, unconditionally. I don't understand what kind of "circumstances" would make it possible for me to not support it.

Sexuality and gender are individual, adult matters and should be treated with respect in all cases. No one is harmed in transgenderism, and I would imagine that a person would come to more harm, psychologically, if they were unable to have freedom over their gender because people found it "reactionary" or "wrong" or whatever.

I would hope that anyone who stands for the liberation of humanity would feel the same.

I am transgendered myself but I think there are exceptional cases where I would not necessarily give my support to trans rights. For example, a group of heterosexual male crossdressers trying to hit lesbian women in toilets and harassing them. It is for this kind of thing that MtFs are often banned from using female toilets in these venues. People like this give the trans community a bad name.

People should have freedom and human rights. But Marxists should not believe in "absolute freedom" or "absolute human rights", that would be a liberal bourgeois position. People have freedom as long as their freedom do not negatively affect others. (Especially other proletarians) If one's sexual freedom becomes the justification for the harassment of others, then at least in a limited sense, that sexual freedom should be taken away. It is for the same kind of logic that rape and sexual harassment (mainly against women, whether cis or trans) should be banned too.

I'm also an explicit feminist and when it comes to transphobia I do not treat the two sexes equally. I always unconditionally oppose male transphobia and transphobia due to any kind of "masculinist" reason but I don't always oppose female transphobia. Virtually all transphobic crime, like rape and murder, is done by men, not women. Whether or not female transphobia is justified would depend on the specific situation. I guess I'm just talking about MtFs here. For FtMs things would be different. But I think MtFs should take social responsibility for being women (rights and responsibilities always come together) and if other women don't accept a MtF into their "gender community", there may be some objective reason for it in a minority of cases and it may not be completely due to prejudice and/or discrimination.

[Thirsty Crow]

I always support cases of transgenderism, unconditionally. I don't understand what kind of "circumstances" would make it possible for me to not support it.

Forced transgenderism.
Many a time people have, on this board, raised the issue of homosexual males in Iran who are "actively encouraged" into transgenderism. This I opposse, without a doubt.
@Iseul: can you expand and elaborate on the issue of "mental illnesses" and paedophilia? I don't see the connection between paedophilia and transgenderism, for instance.

And when it comes to all other manifestations of the phenomenon, I wholeheartedly support trensgender persons. In fact, I have to admit, I'm on the verge of a sort of an idealization of these people, although I'm not sure wether biological factors play the most important role.

[Quail]

I put that I always unconditionally support all cases of transgenderism, but by that I guess I mean all cases where it is the true feeling of the individual, and there is no coercion involved as mentioned above.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I am transgendered myself but I think there are exceptional cases where I would not necessarily give my support to trans rights. For example, a group of heterosexual male crossdressers trying to hit lesbian women in toilets and harassing them. It is for this kind of thing that MtFs are often banned from using female toilets in these venues. People like this give the trans community a bad name.

People should have freedom and human rights. But Marxists should not believe in "absolute freedom" or "absolute human rights", that would be a liberal bourgeois position. People have freedom as long as their freedom do not negatively affect others. (Especially other proletarians) If one's sexual freedom becomes the justification for the harassment of others, then at least in a limited sense, that sexual freedom should be taken away. It is for the same kind of logic that rape and sexual harassment (mainly against women, whether cis or trans) should be banned too.

I'm also an explicit feminist and when it comes to transphobia I do not treat the two sexes equally. I always unconditionally oppose male transphobia and transphobia due to any kind of "masculinist" reason but I don't always oppose female transphobia. Virtually all transphobic crime, like rape and murder, is done by men, not women. Whether or not female transphobia is justified would depend on the specific situation. I guess I'm just talking about MtFs here. For FtMs things would be different. But I think MtFs should take social responsibility for being women (rights and responsibilities always come together) and if other women don't accept a MtF into their "gender community", there may be some objective reason for it in a minority of cases and it may not be completely due to prejudice and/or discrimination.
I agree with that, but cases like the ones you have referenced are disproportionate to the percentage of people who are transgendered NOT to harass lesbian women in toilets.

Obviously any sexual freedom or personal freedom has to be considered in relation to the well-being of the proletariat - this is why we oppose rape, child abuse or any domestic and sexual abuses, but I was speaking from the point of view of a worker who believes that people should always have the right to their own gender and sexuality. Rape is not the same as sexual freedom, as rape is only freedom for the abuser; I unconditionally support gender and sexual freedom and unconditionally oppose rape and forced sexual abuse of any nature, those things are two entirely different matters. Therefore unconditional support for transgenderism does not equate to the support of transgenderism with the aim of abusing a lesbian woman in a toilet or whatever, as that specific case is contradictory to personal sexual and gender freedom. Cases of abuse against transgendered people do not, for me, equate to a lack of support for transgendered people. Transgendered people have the right to their gender wishes and also the right to not be attacked by sexual predators. The same way that a child has the right to be a child without being attacked by sexual predators, or women have the right to be women without being attacked by sexual predators etc etc etc.

Forced trangenderism, rape, abuse and all of these other disgusting things are obviously not tolerated in anyway, that should be a given and I do not agree that these things should inflict my support for the individuals right to their own gender or sexuality, so long as it is not damaging to others in any way.

[leftace53]

I voted for unconditional support.

I don't think that not supporting a transgendered murderer carries into a lack of support for the transgendered, but more along the lines of a lack of support for murder. Obviously I am against forced transgenderism as well, but I am against forced just about anything, so its not so much going against the transgendered, just going against the forced aspect of things.

[Mike Russell]

I voted number 1. its a civil rights issue.

[Queercommie Girl]

Forced transgenderism.
Many a time people have, on this board, raised the issue of homosexual males in Iran who are "actively encouraged" into transgenderism. This I opposse, without a doubt.
@Iseul: can you expand and elaborate on the issue of "mental illnesses" and paedophilia? I don't see the connection between paedophilia and transgenderism, for instance.

And when it comes to all other manifestations of the phenomenon, I wholeheartedly support trensgender persons. In fact, I have to admit, I'm on the verge of a sort of an idealization of these people, although I'm not sure wether biological factors play the most important role.

I agree with you on the "forced transgenderism" aspect.

As for pedophilia and mental illness. I do not really accept the "identity politics" of the liberals. For me transgenderism has a clear objective scientific basis. Consequently not everyone who claims to be transgendered is actually transgendered, because it is not just a purely subjective question, it is also partly objective.

There are those who claim to be transgendered but in reality are only attracted to certain sexual fetishes. While sexual fetishes may be distasteful, they are not illegal. But if these fetishes involve pedophilia, then I will oppose them.

[Thirsty Crow]

As for pedophilia and mental illness. I do not really accept the "identity politics" of the liberals. For me transgenderism has a clear objective scientific basis. Consequently not everyone who claims to be transgendered is actually transgendered, because it is not just a purely subjective question, it is also partly objective.

There are those who claim to be transgendered but in reality are only attracted to certain sexual fetishes. While sexual fetishes may be distasteful, they are not illegal. But if these fetishes involve pedophilia, then I will oppose them.
Eeerr, I lost you there for a minute.

Do you mean the second paragraph to support the first?

And can you elaborate on the objective and scientific basis of transgenderism? (I don't exactly get what you're referring to)

[Queercommie Girl]

Eeerr, I lost you there for a minute.

Do you mean the second paragraph to support the first?

And can you elaborate on the objective and scientific basis of transgenderism? (I don't exactly get what you're referring to)

If there is no objective basis for transgenderism, do you mean people just "randomly choose to be transgendered"? Or that potentially everyone could at some point in their life choose to change their sex?

As someone who is serious about the transgendered movement, I believe that by acknowledging the material basis for transgendered, it would generally acquire a stronger form of justification, rather than just liberal-style individual choice and "identity politics".

Here is some "transgenderism 101" for you:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511 (An article on transgenderism on RevLeft)

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Some recent findings have provided clues and possibly answers as to how or why some or most cases of transsexuality occur. In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests showed that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Their study was the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones. Perhaps confirming why this brain difference occurs, in 2008 at Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, biological studies were performed to attempt to find a link between genes and transsexuality. Their study shows male to female transsexuals are more likely than non-transsexual males to have a longer version of a receptor gene for the sex hormone androgen or testosterone. The research suggests reduced androgen and androgen signaling contributes to the female gender identity of male to female transsexuals. They say that it is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might result in incomplete masculinization of the brain in male to female transsexuals, resulting in a more feminized brain and a female gender identity.

[Thirsty Crow]

If there is no objective basis for transgenderism, do you mean people just "randomly choose to be transgendered"? Or that potentially everyone could at some point in their life choose to change their sex?

No, I'm just lazy and a bit tired, and didn't comprehend to which biological phenomena exactly are you referring to. Sorry for that.
And thanks for the post, it's insightful.

[Adi Shankara]

and so the witch hunt begins...

[Ned Kelly]

Unconditional support, except if it's forced.

[anticap]

I didn't vote, because I don't know if voters will be listed after the poll closes, and I oppose all non-secret voting, as a matter of principle.

But my statement is that no person is inherently entitled to suppress another person's full expression of who and what they inherently are.

You can deduce my vote from there.

[28350]

I voted one.
That being said, gender (not sex) is a societal construct that I think we can do without, like race.

[Queercommie Girl]

and so the witch hunt begins...

What do you mean by "witch hunt"?

[Queercommie Girl]

I voted one.
That being said, gender (not sex) is a societal construct that I think we can do without, like race.

Gender and sex cannot be totally separated, gender differences have a biological basis to some extent.

Complete gender equality cannot arrive unless we arrive at a transhumanist postgenderist society in which even the basic biological differences between the sexes are erased.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There should be an "other" option. If not, I want an option that says: "What's in my pants isn't your business so moral judgments are irrelevant" or "What's it to you?"

[Queercommie Girl]

There should be an "other" option. If not, I want an option that says: "What's in my pants isn't your business so moral judgments are irrelevant" or "What's it to you?"

But it's not just a personal matter. There are many trans people out there who are being treated unfaired, discriminated against etc. That's why we need a political movement, so that together we can rid the world of transphobia.

Why do people engage in politics? What is the underlying basic reason? For anyone who is politically genuine it is to "make a difference" in the world. This is the same in the trans movement as in anything else. Being transgendered doesn't mean one should get trapped into a little personal lifestylist bubble.

[Queercommie Girl]

I didn't vote, because I don't know if voters will be listed after the poll closes, and I oppose all non-secret voting, as a matter of principle.

But my statement is that no person is inherently entitled to suppress another person's full expression of who and what they inherently are.

You can deduce my vote from there.

It's my first poll, I wasn't even aware of the various options for it.

[Il Medico]

What do you mean by "witch hunt"?
Well, despite the general meaning, here on Revleft it has developed into the standard slogan of latent bigots whenever a question that could expose their bigotry is posed. This has been especially true in the past on the question of bigotry against trans folk.


EDIT: Voted Unconditional support, btw.

[revolution inaction]

I'm opposed to all discrimination against transgender people, and think it is peoples own business what they chose to do with there bodies, and that people shouldn't be expected to justify any changes they make.
I also think that ideas such as bain sex are scientific unsupported, and that at least some transexuals are people trying to fit in with social norms about regarding peopls gender and body sex , i think iran is the most obvious example of this, where gay people are forced to have sex change operations. I think that smiler but lesser pressures exist in all other countries to.

not sure what to vote on the poll, but definatly not the last one or middle one

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm opposed to all discrimination against transgender people, and think it is peoples own business what they chose to do with there bodies, and that people shouldn't be expected to justify any changes they make.
I also think that ideas such as bain sex are scientific unsupported, and that at least some transexuals are people trying to fit in with social norms about regarding peopls gender and body sex , i think iran is the most obvious example of this, where gay people are forced to have sex change operations. I think that smiler but lesser pressures exist in all other countries to.

not sure what to vote on the poll, but definatly not the last one or middle one

Not every instance of transgenderism is genuine. In a minority of cases, it may even be forced on the individual, like in Iran.

However, such instances cannot be used to cast suspicions upon transgenderism in general. There are many cases of transgenderism in which the individual has felt a strong desire to change sex ever since childhood, and for these cases there is almost certainly some kind of underlying biological reason.

Some people don't like to admit there is an underlying biological cause for transgenderism largely because they don't like to admit there is an underlying biological cause for gender differences in general. (Perhaps there are other reasons but I'm not aware of them) Their position is scientifically false. Anyone would agree that there is a difference between men and women in terms of their basic reproductive function, therefore is it really such a stretch to also admit that such basic differences would manifest themselves in various ways, such as for instance differences in hormonal levels and brain structure? The "basic reproductive differences" cannot be blackboxed and artificially cut away from the rest of the biological manifestations of gender. Not to mention there are some clear empirical scientific evidence that does show there is an underlying biological basis for transgenderism.

It is useless to talk about "gender equality" in an abstract sense. Gender equality necessarily implies "equality in basic daily life". In principle it is possible to imagine a society in which even those who are truly biologically transgendered do not need to change sex because sex and gender differences have lost their meaning in such a society. But to have such a society, one would need to completely remove gender distinctions in both law and general institutional social usage, (meaning we will get rid of gendered titles like "Mr, Mrs, Miss" etc) make every type of clothing intrinsically "unisex", (so cross-dressing becomes an non-issue) and treat those who play the "top" and "bottom" roles in sex completely equally. (No more sexist jokes and harassment for those who like to have the more passive role in sex)

If one can achieve such a society, then transgenderism would become an non-issue, for the simple reason that gender would cease to exist. But materialistically speaking, without some kind of transhumanist technological advance, I don't think even the most radical of post-gender anarchists would seriously go around promoting for the emergence of such a "genderless" society.

I agree with your point about people have the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies, and your point about people shouldn't be forced to change sex like in Iran, or even pressurised to do so. But your unfounded suspicion that "implicitly" in all countries people who change sex are inevitably responding to some kind of "invisible social pressure" is having the opposite kind of effect: it's putting implicit and subtle pressure on people like me who want to change sex, because rather than treating the whole sex-change event in a positive way, we are told to ponder about whether or not our personal choices are really just the result of "social pressures" derived from relatively reactionary binary gender normativity.

[Devrim]

I'm opposed to all discrimination against transgender people, and think it is peoples own business what they chose to do with there bodies, and that people shouldn't be expected to justify any changes they make.

I agree with this.


What is your view of transgenderism?
I always and unconditionally support all cases of transgenderism


I don't understand what 'support' even means in this case.


There should be an "other" option. If not, I want an option that says: "What's in my pants isn't your business so moral judgments are irrelevant" or "What's it to you?"

This seems pretty logical to me too.

I don't understand why people on RevLeft have such an obsession with transgenderism.

I think maybe part of it is the attraction of the unknown and taboo. I live in a country where it is possibly more accepted, though of course there are still many many problems that transgender people face, I know some transgendered people, I have worked with a couple in the past (incidentally so did my mum in a different country and she was OK with it too), and one of the stars of my favourite TV programme is a transgendered. I don't feel the need to talk about it all the time though, and I think the people that I know who are transgendered are happier if you treat them as women, or in one case a man, and don't constantly go on about it. That at least is my impression from the few people I know.

Why do people on here go on about it so much?

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, despite the general meaning, here on Revleft it has developed into the standard slogan of latent bigots whenever a question that could expose their bigotry is posed. This has been especially true in the past on the question of bigotry against trans folk.


EDIT: Voted Unconditional support, btw.

Does this mean that Sankara posted that in a rather sarcastic tone because for some reason he doesn't like the fact that I've created this poll, or is it just a completely neutral comment on his part?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't understand what 'support' even means in this case.


It is simple. It just means you support transgenderism in general, in the cases that the trans people involve decide to change their sex. And it also means that at least in principle you are prepared to defend the rights of transgendered people if they encounter transphobia, just like you would be prepared to speak on behalf of people who are suffering from homophobia, racism and sexism.



This seems pretty logical to me too.

I don't understand why people on RevLeft have such an obsession with transgenderism.

I think maybe part of it is the attraction of the unknown and taboo. I live in a country where it is possibly more accepted, though of course there are still many many problems that transgender people face, I know some transgendered people, I have worked with a couple in the past (incidentally so did my mum in a different country and she was OK with it too), and one of the stars of my favourite TV programme is a transgendered. I don't feel the need to talk about it all the time though, and I think the people that I know who are transgendered are happier if you treat them as women, or in one case a man, and don't constantly go on about it. That at least is my impression from the few people I know.

Why do people on here go on about it so much?
I disagree. Transgenderism is not just some kind of petit-bourgeois individualistic and selfish lifestylist choice, it is also a political movement. It is a part of the wider LGBT movement, which is a part of the general progressive movement for women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities alike. It is not always revolutionary, sometimes the movement is reformist and seeks to work within the current capitalist system. But generally speaking it is always on the left.

Some trans people are selfish. They just care about living their own little lives happily. If another trans person gets murdered down the block from where they live, they wouldn't even blink an eye. I'm not one of those trans people. I would do something about the murder even if it puts my own life and happiness at risk. I care about the transgender movement and I believe it should have its proper place here on RevLeft because I want to look forward to the day where discrimination against trans people and transphobia around the entire world have gone. Today we are still very far far away from this world, and therefore transgender activism still very much has its place among the left movement in general.

I'm a socialist and I believe in collective action, which I think applies just as much to the trans movement as it does to the worker's movement in general. It's not because I promote a transgender movement "for its own sake", but it's simply because there are certain concrete objective conditions which compel trans people to unite together and fight against discrimination. If you think the transgender movement is an "obsession", then do you also think the gay movement, the feminist movement, and the movement for ethnic and racial minorities, are also "obsessions"? If not, then why the double standard in the case of transgenderism?

Yes, if we live in a society where all trans-women and trans-men are treated exactly as women and men and receive no special discrimination based on their trans status, then we might not need a transgender movement. But clearly we don't live in such a society, so we definitely still need a trans movement. The need for a movement is forced upon us collectively, not because we do it for "fun" or as an "obsession".

And frankly, I am trans myself, I'm not exactly a heteronormative guy with a trans fetish looking on from the outside. So to some extent I have the right to be "obsessed" with it, as it is a core part of my life everyday.

[Devrim]

It is simple. It just means you support transgenderism in general, in the cases that the trans people involve decide to change their sex.

But I don't and never have in any real way. To me supporting people would imply some sort of financial or moral support. I have never known anybody at the time they have been going through it. I would support somebody if they were my friend, and obviously don't run around giving my support to strangers.

I really don't think the word 'support' has any meaning the way the left use it most of the time.

It is a bit like the way people on here talk about supporting various armed groups across the world, and with rare exceptions, one example being Comrade Alistair who is involved in collecting money for the PLFP, they don't. It is just an empty word.


I disagree. Transgenderism is not just some kind of petit-bourgeois individualistic and selfish lifestylist choice,

Did I even suggest it was?


It is a part of the wider LGBT movement, which is a part of the general progressive movement for women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities alike. It is not always revolutionary, sometimes the movement is reformist and seeks to work within the current capitalist system. But generally speaking it is always on the left.

I don't think that single issue campaigns really offer anything to the working class, any campaigns.

We lay out our thoughts on Gay rights movements here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/6/gay-oppression).


If you think the transgender movement is an "obsession", then do you also think the gay movement, the feminist movement, and the movement for ethnic and racial minorities, are also "obsessions"? If not, then why the double standard in the case of transgenderism?

I don't think it is an obsession in general. I think there is a bit of an obsession about it on this site. Witness all the thread their are about it.

Devrim

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

But it's not just a personal matter. There are many trans people out there who are being treated unfaired, discriminated against etc. That's why we need a political movement, so that together we can rid the world of transphobia.

Why do people engage in politics? What is the underlying basic reason? For anyone who is politically genuine it is to "make a difference" in the world. This is the same in the trans movement as in anything else. Being transgendered doesn't mean one should get trapped into a little personal lifestylist bubble.
Transgendered workers should engage in the movement for the liberation of the working class, they do not need a movement of their own and they should fight so that their gender IS a personal issue, and not the business of anyone else. They are not apart from the oppressed classes, therefore they should act within them, with the aims of creating a establishing a socialist society that aims to liberate all from all kinds of oppression.

Transgendered workers are workers like any other, that is all that needs to be said.

[Queercommie Girl]

But I don't and never have in any real way. To me supporting people would imply some sort of financial or moral support. I have never known anybody at the time they have been going through it. I would support somebody if they were my friend, and obviously don't run around giving my support to strangers.

I really don't think the word 'support' has any meaning the way the left use it most of the time.

It is a bit like the way people on here talk about supporting various armed groups across the world, and with rare exceptions, one example being Comrade Alistair who is involved in collecting money for the PLFP, they don't. It is just an empty word.


I don't want to debate about meaningless semantics. In this thread I'm just using the term "support" in the general sense that most of the left seems to use it. That's it. If you want to vote in the poll, then do so. If you don't then don't.



Did I even suggest it was?


Did I even suggest that you said it was? I don't think so. I was just making a generic point.



I don't think that single issue campaigns really offer anything to the working class, any campaigns.


Who said anything about single-issue campaigns? If all I wanted was a single-issue LGBT campaign, I wouldn't even be on this site. But it doesn't mean LGBT or other issues shouldn't be taken seriously in their own right. They are not just there for the interest of broader working class politics.

The way you are making it sound is as if "working class politics" and "LGBT politics" are somehow mutually exclusive. That's not the case. LGBT movement would offer something to the working class in its own right for a very simple reason: the majority of LGBT people around the world are actually working class.

I see your party has a position on gay rights. What about transgender rights? I think your party should have an explicit position on trans issues too.



I don't think it is an obsession in general. I think there is a bit of an obsession about it on this site. Witness all the thread their are about it.


But it seems that there are many other topics which some on this forum seem to have an obsession over, certainly not just transgender issues. For instance, the debate over Stalin vs. Trotsky, over NK etc.

[Devrim]

Who said anything about single-issue campaigns? If all I wanted was a single-issue LGBT campaign, I wouldn't even be on this site. But it doesn't mean LGBT or other issues shouldn't be taken seriously in their own right. They are not just there for the interest of broader working class politics.

The way you are making it sound is as if "working class politics" and "LGBT politics" are somehow mutually exclusive. That's not the case. LGBT movement would offer something to the working class in its own right for a very simple reason: the majority of LGBT people around the world are actually working class.

Of course they are. It is not LGBT campaigns in particular that I don't think are a part of revolutionary politics, but campaign politics in general. I think that communist working class politics implies a commitment against discrimination within it, and actually I remember having a long discussion with a group of workers in the last strike we were involved in about transgender issues.


I see your party has a position on gay rights. What about transgender rights? I think your party should have an explicit position on trans issues too.

It was an article not a 'position'. I presume we ran it because there was a large media focus on gays in Africa at the time. We once ran an article in the Turkish press about a transgendered woman, who was in the news at the time.


But it seems that there are many other topics which some on this forum seem to have an obsession over, certainly not just transgender issues. For instance, ... NK etc.

Absolutely, the stuff about North Korea is pretty weird too. One of the things that gets me about the transgender stuff on here is that it usually seems to be something along the lines of "if a straight man wouldn't want to date a transsexual woman...would that be bigoted? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/if-straight-man-t139772/index.html)", and ends up with people calling others bigots and denouncing them. I find it a bit strange.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

^

Your article on gay rights in Africa seems to be generally speaking quite good.

[gorillafuck]

I'm completely opposed to all discrimination and bigotry against transgendered people.

[Il Medico]

Does this mean that Sankara posted that in a rather sarcastic tone because for some reason he doesn't like the fact that I've created this poll, or is it just a completely neutral comment on his part?
Well, I can't speak for Thomas, but lets just say Jack and others have said similar things. (Which is usually a pathetic attempt to stop people from calling them out on their bigotry.)

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I can't speak for Thomas, but lets just say Jack and others have said similar things. (Which is usually a pathetic attempt to stop people from calling them out on their bigotry.)

Who is Jack? Sorry, I'm relatively new here? What kind of bigotry did he engage in?

Well objectively AFAIK Sankara has never explicitly demonstrated any kind of transphobia. Which makes one wonder why he called this thread "witch-hunting" at all, it shouldn't be the case that his "conscience" is not clear with respect to this issue.

[Il Medico]

Who is Jack? Sorry, I'm relatively new here? What kind of bigotry did he engage in? Oh, yes, I forgot you are new here. Well, Jack is the poster child of Revleft transphobia so to say. He isn't exactly the worst we have had roll through, but he is the one who really set of a lot of debate and exposed the underlying transphobia in this site. Back when the CC was around, it took like two months to get him restricted after post like this:
:http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1458790&postcount=33
and
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1459400&postcount=44



There have been other threads in the past as well. Such as:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenders-change-their-t112177/index4.html





Well objectively AFAIK Sankara has never explicitly demonstrated any kind of transphobia. Which makes one wonder why he called this thread "witch-hunting" at all, it shouldn't be the case that his "conscience" is not clear with respect to this issue.That's the general point of it. I think people who do so try to make out criticisms of their bigotry seem unreasonable.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh, yes, I forgot you are new here. Well, Jack is the poster child of Revleft transphobia so to say. He isn't exactly the worst we have had roll through, but he is the one who really set of a lot of debate and exposed the underlying transphobia in this site. Back when the CC was around, it took like two months to get him restricted after post like this:
:http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1458790&postcount=33
and
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1459400&postcount=44



There have been other threads in the past as well. Such as:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenders-change-their-t112177/index4.html


Of course there must be a few transphobes floating around here, but it seems the majority of people here are not transphobic. Even people like khad I wouldn't necessarily call transphobic, shortage of medical resources etc is a serious problem in the Third World, but in principle that doesn't stop trans people being recognised as their chosen gender. I mean in ancient times people didn't have all these advanced medical technologies to change sex, but transgenderism has existed throughout human history in every single culture.




That's the general point of it. I think people who do so try to make out criticisms of their bigotry seem unreasonable.

But Jack is clearly transphobic and bigoted, while Sankara is not (AFAIK).

[Il Medico]

Of course there must be a few transphobes floating around here, but it seems the majority of people here are not transphobic. Even people like khad I wouldn't necessarily call transphobic, shortage of medical resources etc is a serious problem in the Third World, but in principle that doesn't stop trans people being recognised as their chosen gender. I mean in ancient times people didn't have all these advanced medical technologies to change sex, but transgenderism has existed throughout human history in every single culture. No, there aren't a ton of blatant transphobes floating around, but there has been and still is a lot of underlying transphobic tendencies on this site. It is a similar case with sexism on here. Just because there aren't many cross burning KKK members, doesn't mean that there isn't widespread racist views among many people. The same holds here as in real life. (Though, in real life, it hasn't become quite as unacceptable to be blatantly transphobic as other forms of discrimination sadly)





But Jack is clearly transphobic and bigoted, while Sankara is not (AFAIK).
Never said he was, but I think you might right about his 'conscience' not being clear on the subject. I can't think of another reason why he would say such. Though, to be honest, with some of the crazy shit he posted in the past, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, there aren't a ton of blatant transphobes floating around, but there has been and still is a lot of underlying transphobic tendencies on this site. It is a similar case with sexism on here. Just because there aren't many cross burning KKK members, doesn't mean that there isn't widespread racist views among many people. The same holds here as in real life. (Though, in real life, it hasn't become quite as unacceptable to be blatantly transphobic as other forms of discrimination sadly)


I basically agree.

I can give some examples of "subtle sexism" and "subtle racism" here:

Subtle racism:

1 Sankara claiming that Mongols aren't completely Asiatic because a tiny minority of Mongols have "blonde hair"

2 When I mentioned something about dialectics and Chinese philosophy, some poster who is an anti-dialectician made a denigrating comment about "Chinese fortune cookies", that an example of mild cultural racism

Subtle sexism:

1 The thread in "Chit Chat" about "dog making advances on hen" and "panda rape", as if rape is not a serious thing and just something to have a laugh about "with the boys"

2 The sarcastic use of feminine conversational styles and mannerisms in many posts as a kind of insult, as if masculine styles are intrinsically superior than feminine ones

But if transphobia is only at the level of sexism and racism, then that is already a great progress for the transgender movement. Because in general society transphobia is significantly more widespread, vicious and serious than either sexism or racism.

I would add that generally speaking homophobia is also more serious than sexism and racism in the "real world", though in many countries it is less serious than transphobia. (But not every country, e.g. in Iran homophobia is much much more serious than transphobia, and even in the West, some upper-middle-class trans people are actually homophobic)

I don't think even in a genuinely democratic socialist society we can easily completely get rid of all subtle forms of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. But I do expect that in a socialist society, homophobia and transphobia won't be more prominent than racism and sexism, which would be a big improvement over present-day conditions.



Never said he was, but I think you might right about his 'conscience' not being clear on the subject. I can't think of another reason why he would say such. Though, to be honest, with some of the crazy shit he posted in the past, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

You are right that he is crazy, not to mention very unpopular around here.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I disagree. Transgenderism is not just some kind of petit-bourgeois individualistic and selfish lifestylist choice, it is also a political movement. It is a part of the wider LGBT movement, which is a part of the general progressive movement for women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities alike. It is not always revolutionary, sometimes the movement is reformist and seeks to work within the current capitalist system. But generally speaking it is always on the left.
I wouldn't try and paint transgenderism as a movement. It isn't some "petit-bourgeois individualistic and selfish lifestylist choice" It is just who some people are.



Some trans people are selfish.
I can be selfish sometimes, I'm not going to try and lie.


They just care about living their own little lives happily.
I think it is human nature to want to live happily.


If another trans person gets murdered down the block from where they live, they wouldn't even blink an eye. I'm not one of those trans people. I would do something about the murder even if it puts my own life and happiness at risk. I care about the transgender movement and I believe it should have its proper place here on RevLeft because I want to look forward to the day where discrimination against trans people and transphobia around the entire world have gone. Today we are still very far far away from this world, and therefore transgender activism still very much has its place among the left movement in general.
I feel conflicted on this in a way. Ideally when I go far enough I want to stand in support of the trans community as an ally. I am involved in trans+ advocacy groups though.







And frankly, I am trans myself, I'm not exactly a heteronormative guy with a trans fetish looking on from the outside. So to some extent I have the right to be "obsessed" with it, as it is a core part of my life everyday.

I'm trans too. But the core of my life is poetry and art and beauty and glamor and all that is pretty.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wouldn't try and paint transgenderism as a movement. It isn't some "petit-bourgeois individualistic and selfish lifestylist choice" It is just who some people are.


To be sure, transgenderism in itself is not a movement as such, but there is a political transgender movement in the world (probably more than one, in fact), and such a movement/movements is/are important for trans people to unite together to collectively fight for our rights and against discrimination.



I can be selfish sometimes, I'm not going to try and lie.


While Mao Zedong once remarked that socialists should strive to be 100% altruistic and 0% selfish, I believe that is very unrealistic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of selfishness, but as socialists I believe we should always strive to be more altruistic than selfish, and put the collective interest before our own individualistic ones.



I think it is human nature to want to live happily.


I agree.



I feel conflicted on this in a way. Ideally when I go far enough I want to stand in support of the trans community as an ally. I am involved in trans+ advocacy groups though.


We must strive to be courageous. Just because we are women doesn't give us an excuse to be cowardly in the fact of injustice.

As Che said (even though unfortunately he wasn't enlightened about LGBT issues himself), all those who become indignated in the face of injustice are my comrades.



I'm trans too. But the core of my life is poetry and art and beauty and glamor and all that is pretty.


That is great. I'm not saying politics should be the core of every person, or every trans person. I like beauty too, I am a woman, after all ;)

[Start a Fire]

I would generally support it, but if there's a situation where someone hasn't thought it through, is acting on an impulse, is on mind altering drugs etc. I wouldn't support their decision. So pretty much 95%.

[anticap]

It's my first poll, I wasn't even aware of the various options for it.

No worries, I was just letting you know why I didn't cast a vote alongside my comment. Anyway my position ought to be clear enough from that.

[counterblast]

Transgendered workers should engage in the movement for the liberation of the working class, they do not need a movement of their own and they should fight so that their gender IS a personal issue, and not the business of anyone else. They are not apart from the oppressed classes, therefore they should act within them, with the aims of creating a establishing a socialist society that aims to liberate all from all kinds of oppression.

Transgendered workers are workers like any other, that is all that needs to be said.

Get the fuck over yrself with your bullshit class analysis. Trans people are not simply oppressed because they are workers or because they are poor. Other factors such as sexism, heterosexism, and gender roles play an equal role.

Transphobia (and all other forms of social oppression) will not simply disappear "after the workers revolution" (whenever the hell that is), and anyone who thinks this is either historically ignorant (See the film "I Am Brezhnev's Queen!") or a transphobe.

[Queercommie Girl]

Get the fuck over yrself with your bullshit class analysis. Trans people are not simply oppressed because they are workers or because they are poor. Other factors such as sexism, heterosexism, and gender roles play an equal role.

Transphobia (and all other forms of social oppression) will not simply disappear "after the workers revolution" (whenever the hell that is), and anyone who thinks this is either historically ignorant (See the film "I Am Brezhnev's Queen!") or a transphobe.

It is true that transphobia and homophobia will not automatically disappear even after a successful socialist revolution. However, transphobia does have an objective socio-economic basis in the ultimate sense, and a socialist revolution will at least significantly reduce the objective socio-economic grounds on which transphobia is based.

Historically LGBT/Queer people were largely treated equally during the primitive communist era, inequality increased dramatically after the emergence of class societies, as with racism and sexism. Therefore it is logical to expect inequality to decrease dramatically again once class society is abolished.

Of course, no form of oppression can just disappear of its own accord, if the subjective factor is not present.

I'm happy to see that most socialists today are not really transphobic. But I feel the LGBT movement as a whole has not been sufficiently integrated into the general socialist movement. Too often LGBT politics is just seen as a kind of "add-on", or an "extra treat", something that is solely justified on the basis of generic ethics and human rights, but not something that is truly integrated into the revolutionary dialectics of the socialist movement itself, the way the struggles for sexual and racial equality have already been largely integrated. On the other hand, there are also many LGBT activists who are very suspicious of the socialist movement in general.

This is interesting, considering that the world's earliest form of dialectical philosophy, even before that of the ancient Greeks, was the Chinese theory of Yin and Yang, which can literally be seen as a symbol for transgenderism in general.

I'm reading the book The Red in the Rainbow: Sexuality, Socialism & LGBT Liberation produced by the SWP (UK) at the moment. The book is an integration of Marxist philosophy with the ideology of LGBT politics in general.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Get the fuck over yrself with your bullshit class analysis. Trans people are not simply oppressed because they are workers or because they are poor. Other factors such as sexism, heterosexism, and gender roles play an equal role.

Transphobia (and all other forms of social oppression) will not simply disappear "after the workers revolution" (whenever the hell that is), and anyone who thinks this is either historically ignorant (See the film "I Am Brezhnev's Queen!") or a transphobe.
I didn't say that. I said that the revolutionary left should welcome transgendered workers into the movement, without question, in the hopes of liberating them. They are workers as we are workers, and whilst they face specific issues that are, unfortunately, appropriated to them specifically, they should still operate within the working class liberation movements (in more "accepting" societies, I understand this can be difficult in other parts of the world). No one has said that any of these "isms" will disappear in a time of revolution, but we do aim to get rid of them, and this can't be done without a strong working class, of all genders, ethnicities, sexualities etc. Much of the movement in Britain does accept members of the transgendered community (as should be expected), and that is the consensus I am speaking from. I feel that transgendered should campaign within the revolutionary movement, for their liberation, as they are workers.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

To be sure, transgenderism in itself is not a movement as such, but there is a political transgender movement in the world (probably more than one, in fact), and such a movement/movements is/are important for trans people to unite together to collectively fight for our rights and against discrimination.
Yes there is a trans rights/trans liberation movement. I support it. But I would rather support it as a woman and as a lesbian ally to the trans community, as I really want to go stealth as a transsexual and just be a woman.



While Mao Zedong once remarked that socialists should strive to be 100% altruistic and 0% selfish, I believe that is very unrealistic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of selfishness, but as socialists I believe we should always strive to be more altruistic than selfish, and put the collective interest before our own individualistic ones.
I'm too vain for such altruism. You can be altruistic if you want, I'll stay self absorbed and full of vanity. :thumbup1:



I agree.
Good to see that.




We must strive to be courageous. Just because we are women doesn't give us an excuse to be cowardly in the fact of injustice.

As Che said (even though unfortunately he wasn't enlightened about LGBT issues himself), all those who become indignated in the face of injustice are my comrades.
I consider myself more so just a woman than a transwoman.



That is great. I'm not saying politics should be the core of every person, or every trans person. I like beauty too, I am a woman, after all ;)

I see we have both of those factors in common.

[Adi Shankara]

Well, despite the general meaning, here on Revleft it has developed into the standard slogan of latent bigots whenever a question that could expose their bigotry is posed. This has been especially true in the past on the question of bigotry against trans folk.


EDIT: Voted Unconditional support, btw.


Really? I always thought it was the standard of ignorant shitpigs who use it to silence someone else's opinion when they have no real arguments of their own and want to control thought!

No, really, I have seen some people who were openly supportive of transsexualism shot down by certain users because they didn't think it was for them to date a transsexual, and were called bigot for it. that is just fucking ridiculous.


Get the fuck over yrself with your bullshit class analysis. Trans people are not simply oppressed because they are workers or because they are poor. Other factors such as sexism, heterosexism, and gender roles play an equal role.

Transphobia (and all other forms of social oppression) will not simply disappear "after the workers revolution" (whenever the hell that is), and anyone who thinks this is either historically ignorant (See the film "I Am Brezhnev's Queen!") or a transphobe.

ahh, I see the name calling has begun right as scheduled.

"QUICK, LETS CALL SOMEONE A TRANSPHOBE BECAUSE THEY MADE ME LOOK STUPID USING A MARXIST ANALYSIS OF THE BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION!!!"

[Adi Shankara]

You are right that he is crazy, not to mention very unpopular around here.

It's not a popularity contest at all. However, I don't think I am unpopular, seeing as I have a rather average rep value, and many of my posts are in chitchat so it could be higher adjusted per capita.

however, that's immaterial. I'm not a transphobe. I'm just concerned for the health of people who feel they need to fundamentally alter their bodies in such a way to fit what other people think is a normal gender identity.

it makes me feel sympathetic, and I wish there was a way to make transexuals happy with themselves and their bodies they were born with.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

it makes me feel sympathetic, and I wish there was a way to make transexuals happy with themselves and their bodies they were born with.

There is. Surgery.

Anyway it is not up to you to make transsexuals happy.This condition was around thousands of years before you were, it'll be around thousands of years after.

It is up to you (and any leftist) to try to understand and empathize, if not identify with, TG people. It is up to you, as a leftist, to support TG rights in whatever political work you do. Many, maybe most, straight men could not imagine themselves having sex with another man. That's okay. Many straight women could not imagine themselves having sex with another woman. That is okay too.Most "cisgender" people couldn't imagine themselves being transgendered. That's completely understandable.

The point is to understand, and accept, that in sexual preference and gender identity, there is, and always will be, an enormous diversity.The point is to understand the sometimes horrendous oppression sexual minorities face under capitalism, why this occurs, and have some idea what to do about it.

This thread started, I believe, with the question of whether a straight man would want to date a transsexual. Let's rephrase this.

Would a transsexual woman want to date a guy who is a clueless transphobe who resists being educated? Transsexuals are not here for you to date. (Nothing personal, intended, of course)

[Queercommie Girl]

It's not a popularity contest at all. However, I don't think I am unpopular, seeing as I have a rather average rep value, and many of my posts are in chitchat so it could be higher adjusted per capita.

however, that's immaterial. I'm not a transphobe. I'm just concerned for the health of people who feel they need to fundamentally alter their bodies in such a way to fit what other people think is a normal gender identity.

it makes me feel sympathetic, and I wish there was a way to make transexuals happy with themselves and their bodies they were born with.

I don't wish to personally insult you.

I recommend the book produced by the Trotskyist British SWP: The Red in the Rainbow: Sexuality, Socialism & LGBT Liberation. It's a good Marxist history and analysis of LGBT politics in general, including trans issues. If you are in any way influenced by Marxist analysis, you might find the book quite interesting.

Who knows, it might even change some of your views regarding transgenderism. It's a virtue to have an open mind.

[Queercommie Girl]

The point is to understand, and accept, that in sexual preference and gender identity, there is, and always will be, an enormous diversity.The point is to understand the sometimes horrendous oppression sexual minorities face under capitalism, why this occurs, and have some idea what to do about it.


Not just under capitalism, but under every kind of class society.

[leftace53]

Questions!
While not all transgenders want a sex change, however of the ones that do, if they recieve the sex change, could that be considered as a "cure".
Since (as far as I understand) transgenderism has some biological roots in the differnce of a person's brain and body sex, would it be acceptable to find some sort of medical "cure" to assure the same bran and body sex within fetuses?

Note: I am not advocating a cure for transgenderism just asking questions.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Questions!
Fire away!:)


While not all transgenders want a sex change, however of the ones that do, if they recieve the sex change, could that be considered as a "cure".
SRS would be cure enough for me. I long for the day when I get to go to Thailand for my bottom surgery.

[Queercommie Girl]

Questions!
While not all transgenders want a sex change, however of the ones that do, if they recieve the sex change, could that be considered as a "cure".
Since (as far as I understand) transgenderism has some biological roots in the differnce of a person's brain and body sex, would it be acceptable to find some sort of medical "cure" to assure the same bran and body sex within fetuses?

Note: I am not advocating a cure for transgenderism just asking questions.

For fetuses it is a possibility, but it couldn't never be done for adults or even teenagers, as "brain sex" is an intrinsic part of one's self-identity, and no-one would wish to change "brain sex" rather than "body sex".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Questions!
While not all transgenders want a sex change, however of the ones that do, if they recieve the sex change, could that be considered as a "cure".
Since (as far as I understand) transgenderism has some biological roots in the differnce of a person's brain and body sex, would it be acceptable to find some sort of medical "cure" to assure the same bran and body sex within fetuses?

Note: I am not advocating a cure for transgenderism just asking questions.

I'm not sure if I would carry the medical model that far but for most transsexuals surgery would put their body more in congruence with their brain/mind.Transsexuals post-op would see themselves as having the sex organ they were supposed to have.

In addition to the book Iseul mentioned I could recommend "True Selves".
Its not really political but it is a very good and readable introduction to transgenderism. Its used by therapists, teachers, guidance counselors, parents and TGs themselves to help understand this.

http://www.ifge.org/books/true_selves.htm

http://www.amazon.com/True-Selves-Understanding-Transsexualism-Professionals/dp/0787967025

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Not just under capitalism, but under every kind of class society.

Obviously oppression has existed in every class based society. Today though forms of oppression-racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, have been subsumed under capitalist oppression just as earlier pre-capitalist modes of production-tributary, feudalism, etc. still exist but have been subsumed into capitalism.

The key to ending all oppression now lies in dismantling capitalism.

[enrici]

I'm not sure if I would carry the medical model that far but for most transsexuals surgery would put their body more in congruence with their brain/mind.Transsexuals post-op would see themselves as having the sex organ they were supposed to have. In addition to the book Iseul mentioned I could recommend "True Selves". Its not really political but it is a very good and readable introduction to transgenderism. Its used by therapists, teachers, guidance counselors, parents and TGs themselves to help understand this. Yes, I'm sure in the future medical technology will be able to fashion these organs for real. Most of the revulsion towards transsexuals, I think, comes from people thinking it's "mutilation," but with medical advances I'm sure that this will change. Socialists should embrace technological change.

[Adi Shankara]

You guys are forgetting--it's still too early to establish whether there is a biological cause for heterosexuality, transsexualism, or bisexuality. There is evidence to suggest that there may be, but it's inconclusive.

I certainly don't think someone's sexuality is their fault; I take the freudian and Kinseyian belief that we are all born as blank pieces of paper, and life experiences and society draw who we are on it. so it's certainly not how or who we are born as, but we can't help it nonetheless.


...as "brain sex" is an intrinsic part of one's self-identity, and no-one would wish to change "brain sex" rather than "body sex".

There is no solid, irrefutable evidence of "brain sex". I believe there is such a thing, but if we are talking of absolutes, then we need to use concrete evidence, just as there is nothing solid to establish something of a solid gender or sexual identity within hetero or homosexuals.

[Adi Shankara]

There is. Surgery.

Anyway it is not up to you to make transsexuals happy.This condition was around thousands of years before you were, it'll be around thousands of years after.

It is up to you (and any leftist) to try to understand and empathize, if not identify with, TG people. It is up to you, as a leftist, to support TG rights in whatever political work you do. Many, maybe most, straight men could not imagine themselves having sex with another man. That's okay. Many straight women could not imagine themselves having sex with another woman. That is okay too.Most "cisgender" people couldn't imagine themselves being transgendered. That's completely understandable.

The point is to understand, and accept, that in sexual preference and gender identity, there is, and always will be, an enormous diversity.The point is to understand the sometimes horrendous oppression sexual minorities face under capitalism, why this occurs, and have some idea what to do about it.

This thread started, I believe, with the question of whether a straight man would want to date a transsexual. Let's rephrase this.

Would a transsexual woman want to date a guy who is a clueless transphobe who resists being educated? Transsexuals are not here for you to date. (Nothing personal, intended, of course)

I could agree with almost all you said.

Again, to reiterate, I personally believe transsexuals have differences in hormonal levels and chemical levels in their brains that cause them to think and behave different from their traditional biological sex. I think the same is apparent in gender. I just don't know the cause of why these differences exist.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There's evidence from the literature on transgenderism that the cause isn't environmental.

Some time in the 1960s a young boy in Canada was accidentally castrated while a doctor was doing a circumcision.

John Money was one of the pioneers of transgender research. He did a lot to get TGism accepted and understood. He believed the cause was strictly environmental, contained in the way young children interact. As time went on fewer and fewer people believed his theory, but was still a pioneer.

John Money took charge of the young boy. With his environmentalist theory he advised the parents to raise the kid as a girl, basically whether he liked it or not.The kid rebelled against this growing up. Sometime in his 20s this guy went back to living as a guy.He went though a huge amount of trauma being forced to grow up as a girl. There's a book about him

http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0060192119

There was also an NPR interview with him. John Money's theories lost a lot of credibility after this case.This story would seem to lend credence to the idea that one's gender identity, including an identity as the opposite gender, is inborn.

There is also research from twin and sibling studies indicating that the cause is more than environmental.

We don't fully know the cause of transgenderism. It is known there are difference in brain structure between men and women, "brain sex".
http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Difference-Between-Women/dp/0385311834

There's evidence from brain research that m to f transsexuals have female brains. The currently popular theory is that a pregnant woman under stress secretes a higher than normal dose of estrogen into the womb. This has an effect on the fetal brain, if the fetus is male. If the stress induced hormone wash occurs at an early stage of development the fetus (and boy) will grow up to have "female patterned sexual preference", that is the kid will be gay. If the hormone wash occurs later, when the brain tissue is larger and more open to change the boy will grow up to be transgendered.

This is the current theory. It's the working hypothesis used by transgender therapists.There's some research which seems to bear this out. There's so much we don't know.These are theories.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html

The best attitude, I think, is "who cares what the cause is?" Being trans is just part of the diversity of humanity.

[Reznov]

Heres a question then,

Lets say we do have someone that is not comfortable with themselves and truly does wish to have a gender change.

Then should a "Leftist" government provide the resources for free for these people to get this?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Heres a question then,

Lets say we do have someone that is not comfortable with themselves and truly does wish to have a gender change.

Then should a "Leftist" government provide the resources for free for these people to get this?

Cuba does. If someone has a condition which seriously impedes their quality of life and surgery can change this, a leftist government should provide this.

[Reznov]

Cuba does. If someone has a condition which seriously impedes their quality of life and surgery can change this, a leftist government should provide this.

Can I ask for a source?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42693

Leslie Feinberg (who is trans) of the Workers World organization (which is very pro-Cuban) has articles on this in the WW paper.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Cuba does. If someone has a condition which seriously impedes their quality of life and surgery can change this, a leftist government should provide this.

This decision came on by Raul Castro's part since he took his brother's place if I remember correctly.

[Adi Shankara]

Cuba does. If someone has a condition which seriously impedes their quality of life and surgery can change this, a leftist government should provide this.

Another question: how can you prevent this expensive and life-changing surgery from being abused, limiting it to only people who seriously would be better off or happier as men or women or what they wish, and not just people who want it because they fetishize it or because they are in an incorrect state of mind? (people with Borderline Personality Disorder come to mind)

[Hiero]

Another question: how can you prevent this expensive and life-changing surgery from being abused, limiting it to only people who seriously would be better off or happier as men or women or what they wish, and not just people who want it because they fetishize it or because they are in an incorrect state of mind? (people with Borderline Personality Disorder come to mind)

The correct question is "Would this be abused?" And I very much doubt it would be abused.

[Queercommie Girl]

Questions!
While not all transgenders want a sex change, however of the ones that do, if they recieve the sex change, could that be considered as a "cure".
Since (as far as I understand) transgenderism has some biological roots in the differnce of a person's brain and body sex, would it be acceptable to find some sort of medical "cure" to assure the same bran and body sex within fetuses?

Note: I am not advocating a cure for transgenderism just asking questions.

Also, it is debatable whether such a course of action is desirable. Because it seems to be objectively just enforcing a rigid framework of binary gender again. Maybe the natural occurrance of transgenderism outside the gender binary is indeed an intrinsically positive and useful trait to some extent.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is no solid, irrefutable evidence of "brain sex". I believe there is such a thing, but if we are talking of absolutes, then we need to use concrete evidence, just as there is nothing solid to establish something of a solid gender or sexual identity within hetero or homosexuals.


There are definitely biological factors involved, just as with homosexuality.

But you are never going to find a simplistic biological reductionist basis for homosexuality and transgenderism in the form of the "gay gene" or "trans gene". It's never going to be that simple, with something as immensely complex as human beings. (Humans are the most complex physical systems in the known universe)

[Queercommie Girl]

Another question: how can you prevent this expensive and life-changing surgery from being abused, limiting it to only people who seriously would be better off or happier as men or women or what they wish, and not just people who want it because they fetishize it or because they are in an incorrect state of mind? (people with Borderline Personality Disorder come to mind)

Do you think people just change sex for fun?

Even if the technology becomes available for people to easily change gender back and forth, and socially trans people are no longer treated unequally at all, the majority of cis-people probably still wouldn't choose to change sex.

Why don't you ask yourself first, since you are cis-gendered. Suppose you lived in the 25th century, where technology makes sex change easy, and socially trans people are never discriminated. Would you decide to change sex "just for fun"?

I did tick option 2 for this thread, which means I don't unconditionally support every single instance of claimed transgenderism, for instance, when it's just a dirty old hetero man cross-dressing to harass women, or when the person is severely mentally ill.

But empirical evidence suggests that such things do not apply for the vast majority of trans cases.

[Queercommie Girl]

Really? I always thought it was the standard of ignorant shitpigs who use it to silence someone else's opinion when they have no real arguments of their own and want to control thought!

No, really, I have seen some people who were openly supportive of transsexualism shot down by certain users because they didn't think it was for them to date a transsexual, and were called bigot for it. that is just fucking ridiculous.


Why would anyone in the right frame of mind ever accuse this thread of being a "witchhunt"? It doesn't make sense. In case you haven't noticed already, this thread is not even asking anything about people's dating preferences, it is just asking about people's general views of transgenderism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Another question: how can you prevent this expensive and life-changing surgery from being abused, limiting it to only people who seriously would be better off or happier as men or women or what they wish, and not just people who want it because they fetishize it or because they are in an incorrect state of mind? (people with Borderline Personality Disorder come to mind)

In the US and other countries there's a screening process for transsexuals known as the "Harry Benjamin Standards of Care". Before going on hormones a "tranny" has to see a therapist for at least 3 months. People are tested for Multiple Personality Disorder, Borderline PD, etc. One then has to live as a member of the other gender in a trial period to see if it "works". Then one has to live "full time" for a year. After this one needs permission from the therapist to have surgery. Surgery, usually called SRS or GRS, goes for between $10,000-$40,000 USD. Surgery is cheaper in Thailand and there's a medical tourism industry in that country. Cuba may be going in this direction.


As I understand in Canada the screening process is even stricter.

There are also the hardships people like this go though in relation to their job, family, friends, losing male privalege, etc.

Anyway this does a good job of screening out fetishists or mentally ill people.

There has been a lot of controversy and some resentment about the screening system among transsexuals themselves. Gender therapists were traditionally regarded as "gatekeepers" helping to reinforce traditional femininity.If a male to female TS was attracted to women instead of men (and there are a lot of transsexual lesbians-gender identity and sexual orientation are different things), appeared too aggressive or unfeminine she would often be denied surgery. Much more is known about transgenderism, there's more information available, and the TG community is bigger so this isn't as much of a problem now.

There are a lot of trannys who transition DIY. People buy hormones online, etc.Of course its preferable to see a shrink but in the US, with its sophisticated but inaccessible healthcare system, this often isn't an option for working class trannys.

Anyway people should have the right to have control over their body and its hard to see how something like this could be abused.

[Adi Shankara]

In the US and other countries there's a screening process for transsexuals known as the "Harry Benjamin Standards of Care". Before going on hormones a "tranny" has to see a therapist for at least 3 months. People are tested for Multiple Personality Disorder, Borderline PD, etc. One then has to live as a member of the other gender in a trial period to see if it "works". Then one has to live "full time" for a year. After this one needs permission from the therapist to have surgery. Surgery, usually called SRS or GRS, goes for between $10,000-$40,000 USD. Surgery is cheaper in Thailand and there's a medical tourism industry in that country. Cuba may be going in this direction.


As I understand in Canada the screening process is even stricter.

There are also the hardships people like this go though in relation to their job, family, friends, losing male privalege, etc.

Anyway this does a good job of screening out fetishists or mentally ill people.

There has been a lot of controversy and some resentment about the screening system among transsexuals themselves. Gender therapists were traditionally regarded as "gatekeepers" helping to reinforce traditional femininity.If a male to female TS was attracted to women instead of men (and there are a lot of transsexual lesbians-gender identity and sexual orientation are different things), appeared too aggressive or unfeminine she would often be denied surgery. Much more is known about transgenderism, there's more information available, and the TG community is bigger so this isn't as much of a problem now.

There are a lot of trannys who transition DIY. People buy hormones online, etc.Of course its preferable to see a shrink but in the US, with its sophisticated but inaccessible healthcare system, this often isn't an option for working class trannys.

Anyway people should have the right to have control over their body and its hard to see how something like this could be abused.

Thats a good answer. I was just curious because I dated a girl who changed her sexual identity once a week, and probably would've become transsexual (and come to regret it) if she was offered the option...naturally, she was quite mentally disturbed, as she had no solid identity at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Thats a good answer. I was just curious because I dated a girl who changed her sexual identity once a week, and probably would've become transsexual (and come to regret it) if she was offered the option...naturally, she was quite mentally disturbed, as she had no solid identity at all.

Why did you date her then?

Some people do seem to have a "pan-sexual" identity. (Just like some people have an asexual identity) Maybe she should just accept that rather than changing back and forth all the time.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another question: how can you prevent this expensive and life-changing surgery from being abused, limiting it to only people who seriously would be better off or happier as men or women or what they wish, and not just people who want it because they fetishize it or because they are in an incorrect state of mind? (people with Borderline Personality Disorder come to mind)

On the topic of "fetishes", personally I would not apologise for any kind of sexual fetishes, nor do I think they are genuine transgenderism. (Though there is a fundamental difference between a trans-woman feeling "sexy" in a nice dress as many women would do and a dirty old hetero man's fetishes harassment of women dressed in women's clothing)

But it seems society already allows many other types of sexual fetishes without much problem, such as say BDSM. So why should transgender fetishes be frowned upon when these other forms of fetishes are not? Just because it crosses the gender binary line?

All forms of sexual fetishes should be treated equally - equally accepted or equally rejected. I'm not defending fetishic cross-dressing but it is wrong to accept fetishes like BDSM but reject fetishes like cross-dressing just because the latter is "transgendered".

[Crimson Commissar]

While I do think it's ridiculous that someone would want to change their own biological gender, I don't think that we should try to stop people from doing it, and I have no problem if someone wants to become transgendered. I completely support our trans comrades and believe they should be treated equally and respected.

[Queercommie Girl]

While I do think it's ridiculous that someone would want to change their own biological gender, I don't think that we should try to stop people from doing it, and I have no problem if someone wants to become transgendered. I completely support our trans comrades and believe they should be treated equally and respected.

But you are not respecting your trans comrades by saying things like that.

That's like saying "while I do think it is ridiculous that someone would wish to sleep with the same sex...I completely support our gay comrades and believe they should be treated equally and respected..."

How do you think gay people would receive such a comment?

It seems your "support" is no more than empty "political correctness". We don't need this kind of support. We'd rather have genuine criticism than half-hearted adherence to "political correctness".

You just think it is "ridiculous" because you are ignorant. And it is a manifestation of cis-privilege: you feel comfortable with your physical gender, but not everybody do.

Maybe you should educate yourself more:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511

[Crimson Commissar]

But you are not respecting your trans comrades by saying things like that.

That's like saying "while I do think it is ridiculous that someone would wish to sleep with the same sex...I completely support our gay comrades and believe they should be treated equally and respected..."

How do you think gay people would receive such a comment?

It seems your "support" is no more than empty "political correctness". We don't need this kind of support. We'd rather have genuine criticism than half-hearted adherence to "political correctness".

You just think it is "ridiculous" because you are ignorant. And it is a manifestation of cis-privilege: you feel comfortable with your physical gender, but not everybody do.

Maybe you should educate yourself more:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511
I'm not going to attack someone because they're transgendered. I just don't think it's possible for you to feel as if you are a different gender to your current one. How can you be born as a male but somehow be a female inside? That doesn't make sense. It's not like homosexuality where you're born with a natural attraction to your own gender. Maybe I just can't understand it because I don't experience it myself, but honestly it just seems like some people try to trick themselves into thinking they're a different sex than they really are. I don't really have any problem with someone who wants to become a different gender just because they want to, it's just those idiots who rant for hours about how "they weren't meant to be a boy/girl" and "they're trapped inside their own body" or some shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not going to attack someone because they're transgendered. I just don't think it's possible for you to feel as if you are a different gender to your current one. How can you be born as a male but somehow be a female inside? That doesn't make sense. It's not like homosexuality where you're born with a natural attraction to your own gender. Maybe I just can't understand it because I don't experience it myself, but honestly it just seems like some people try to trick themselves into thinking they're a different sex than they really are. I don't really have any problem with someone who wants to become a different gender just because they want to, it's just those idiots who rant for hours about how "they weren't meant to be a boy/girl" and "they're trapped inside their own body" or some shit.

Then you are being ignorant, because gender dysphoria is a real condition. You are not looking at the real evidence, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science


Some recent findings have provided clues and possibly answers as to how or why some or most cases of transsexuality occur. In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests showed that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Their study was the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.Perhaps confirming why this brain difference occurs, in 2008 at Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, biological studies were performed to attempt to find a link between genes and transsexuality. Their study shows male to female transsexuals are more likely than non-transsexual males to have a longer version of a receptor gene for the sex hormone androgen or testosterone. The research suggests reduced androgen and androgen signaling contributes to the female gender identity of male to female transsexuals. They say that it is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might result in incomplete masculinization of the brain in male to female transsexuals, resulting in a more feminized brain and a female gender identity.


In short: male and female brain structures are different. Male-to-female trans people have brains with female-like structures despite being physically male and vice versa. Usually transgendered people of this type experience gender dysphoria from a very young age, such as the famous transgendered artist Jin Xing from China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Xing

She experienced strong transsexual desires early in life. She said she would stay outside during rain, and wish that a lightning strike would turn her body female (Levey).

You said you won't attack trans people, but by calling those who experience gender dysphoria "idiots", you are objectively verbally insulting trans people, since actually the majority of trans people experience some kind of gender dysphoria. You are eating your own words.

Essentially it's just a kind of ignorance. You just think transgenderism is "unnatural", like how people thought homosexuality is "unnatural" in the days before widespread acceptance of homosexuality in the West occurred.

Homosexuality is the natural attraction to members of the same sex. Transgenderism is the natural belief that one is of a different gender to the one of one's birth. How is one acceptable and the other one not?

If some people feel they are born in the wrong gender, why should you be against it anyway? What does that have to do with you personally anyway? If people should be free to change their sex, shouldn't they also be free to feel whatever they like about themselves?

The fact of the matter is that many people do feel like they are trapped in the wrong body, lacking a better way to describe it. And they can't help what they are feeling. If all you are saying to these people is that they are "idiots", then you are not helping or supportive at all.

Not being transgendered yourself, you don't have to understand transgenderism from a personal angle, but it doesn't give the right to call other people "idiots" simply for how they honestly feel.

And your point about trans people "thinking like they are of a different sex than they really are" sounds like you think we should have some kind of rigid binary gender categories like male and female and people aren't free to express themselves in the ways of the opposite gender.

You said it doesn't make sense to say that one who is born male "feel that they are female inside". I agree that this way of phrasing it does sound somewhat "mystical". A better and more social way of putting it is that a male-to-female trans person is someone who is born biologically male but wish to assume a female social role in society consistently. After all, although there are biological factors involved, primarily gender is still a social construction, and in a pragmatic sense it affects all of us directly not through the abstract theories of biology but through social experience. The question here for trans-skeptics like you is therefore no longer primarily a biological one, seeking to explain the fundamental biological basis of transgenderism in a reductionist sense, but a social one: why should a biological male be prevented from assuming a female gender identity in the social sense if he wishes to, and indeed vice versa?

It is a result of the emergence of patriarchy and class society that gender became rigidly fixed into binary categories that people are not really allowed to cross. In matriarchal, primitive communist societies, gender roles were more fluidic and transgendered people were largely treated equally.

Indeed, the very fact that in class society people are no longer free to move from one gender to another is a clear sign that the genders have become unequal. If the genders are considered to be equal and of intrinsically equal worth in a social sense, what possible objection could there be against transgenderism?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm not going to attack someone because they're transgendered. I just don't think it's possible for you to feel as if you are a different gender to your current one. How can you be born as a male but somehow be a female inside? That doesn't make sense. It's not like homosexuality where you're born with a natural attraction to your own gender. Maybe I just can't understand it because I don't experience it myself, but honestly it just seems like some people try to trick themselves into thinking they're a different sex than they really are. I don't really have any problem with someone who wants to become a different gender just because they want to, it's just those idiots who rant for hours about how "they weren't meant to be a boy/girl" and "they're trapped inside their own body" or some shit.

Easy for someone to say when they have the privilege of being born into the right body. I grew up hating my reflection wanting to die just to get out of the body I was born into.

[leftace53]

How would a genderless society effect transgenderism? I mean, I understand that there is an amount of biological basis in transgenderism, but would living in a genderless society change any possible social aspects of transgenderism?

[Queercommie Girl]

How would a genderless society effect transgenderism? I mean, I understand that there is an amount of biological basis in transgenderism, but would living in a genderless society change any possible social aspects of transgenderism?

Define "genderless society".

If you mean a society that is only "genderless" in the essentially meaningless "politically correct" sense, like how the USSR under Khruschev was "communist", as in a society that is "nominally genderless" but in practice there is still an implicit agreement that men and women must still follow their own traditional social roles, styles, mannerisms etc and it is culturally unacceptable for the "gender line" to be crossed, then no the situation for transgendered people won't change at all. In fact, such a hypocritical pseudo-genderless society could in principle be even worse for trans people as it would become "politically incorrect" for them to complain. After all, don't we already live in a genderless society? False equality is worse than genuine inequality, just as oppression under disguise is even worse than frank and explicit oppression, and a deformed worker's state could be more oppressive objectively for workers than Western capitalism.

If you mean a society that is literally genderless, i.e.

1) Gendered pronouns like "Mr" and "Ms" are no longer in wide use, replaced by gender-neutral terms like "Mx";

2) Most forms of clothing etc are intrinsically considered to be unisex;

3) Most forms of verbal expressions, mannerisms etc are intrinsically considered to be unisex;

then yes things would change for a sub-set of trans people, but not those trans people who experience strong physical dysphoria.

However, in practice it is unrealistic to expect a literally genderless society to come about, before transhumanist technologies become available.

[leftace53]

I did mean a literal genderless society.

Also what is the general transgenderal view of cross dressers?

[Queercommie Girl]

I did mean a literal genderless society.

Also what is the general transgenderal view of cross dressers?

Even in a literal genderless society many trans people would still wish to change sex, because for them it is a basic physical thing. They want to have a pair of breasts and get rid of the penis or vice versa. It's not just a matter of style, mannerism, social role or who they are attracted to.

Cross-dressers are a sub-set of trans people to some extent. But not all people who cross-dress are transgendered. Nowadays as gender relations have become more liberal than before, many completely heteronormative cis-gendered people may cross-dress just for fun once in a while. I once read a dating advice webpage that says one way to spice up your sex life with your girlfriend/boyfriend (assuming you are in a hetero relationship) is to once in a while completely switch the gender role, including clothing style, role during sex etc. Clearly these people are not really transgendered.

Some gay people also like to dress "in drag" sometimes (drag kings and drag queens), but subjectively they don't consider themselves to be transgendered. For them it's just a form of artistic expression.

Also, some people (mainly heterosexual males) cross-dress as a kind of sexual or autosexual fetish. These people aren't genuinely transgendered either.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not going to attack someone because they're transgendered. I just don't think it's possible for you to feel as if you are a different gender to your current one. How can you be born as a male but somehow be a female inside? That doesn't make sense. It's not like homosexuality where you're born with a natural attraction to your own gender. Maybe I just can't understand it because I don't experience it myself, but honestly it just seems like some people try to trick themselves into thinking they're a different sex than they really are. I don't really have any problem with someone who wants to become a different gender just because they want to, it's just those idiots who rant for hours about how "they weren't meant to be a boy/girl" and "they're trapped inside their own body" or some shit.

Your views are also rather narrow. In a wider sense "trans people" aren't just those who wish to completely change sex through surgery etc, but also everyone who likes to gender-bend and defy the society's rigid rules on gender roles. Why the fuck should any genuine socialist respect the rigid binary gender categories of class society? In this sense transgenderism does have a more revolutionary element in challenging the gender binary of bourgeois (and Stalinist) society.

Fuck those reactionary shits who think a rigid binary gender norm should be unconditionally imposed on everyone. They are just as bad as those who oppose people sleeping with members of the same sex.

[Adi Shankara]

literal androgyny may be possible on an individual scale...but society will always have gender. that's fact.

[Queercommie Girl]

literal androgyny may be possible on an individual scale...but society will always have gender. that's fact.

That's relative to the technological level of today. No "facts" can ever be eternally unchangable in a metaphysical sense.

And that doesn't in any way makes it acceptable to impose a binary gender cultural standard on everyone.

[Adi Shankara]

That's relative to the technological level of today. No "facts" can ever be eternally unchangable in a metaphysical sense.

And that doesn't in any way makes it acceptable to impose a binary gender cultural standard on everyone.

I don't impose binary gender on anyone, since everyone's concept of gender is different across cultures; in Papua New Guinea, many women are hunters, in Sweden, they're more egalitarian, etc. so you can't do that in the first place.

all I was meant to say was that you can talk about genders without it supposing anything, also, to say that someday technology would change it is folly, considering that we don't know what technology may or may not do, nor do we know the relevance of the future to today's situation, except that it doesn't effect anything as of now.

[Queercommie Girl]

also, to say that someday technology would change it is folly, considering that we don't know what technology may or may not do, nor do we know the relevance of the future to today's situation, except that it doesn't effect anything as of now.


Unless you are a conservative, there is no reason to reject the potential possibility of post-genderism in the technological sense at all. Of course, no-one can accurately predict the future, and the future is not the most pressing matter at hand, but at least in principle there is absolutely no progressive justification possible to rule out transhumanism.

[Adi Shankara]

there is absolutely no progressive justification possible to rule out transhumanism.

...except that we can't predict the future, nor know what technology will bring us.

[Queercommie Girl]

...except that we can't predict the future, nor know what technology will bring us.

But that's not the same as in principle ruling this kind of technology out in a sort of quasi-metaphysical sense.

In fact, according to the principle of logical induction, we can estimate the future based on past observations. If we observe that the sun rises everyday, we can predict that the sun will continue to rise in the future, even if such a prediction can never be completely guaranteed. Similarly, given how fast technology has progressed in the last 500 years, we can predict that it will continue to progress at a relatively fast rate (even if it slows down slightly it is still really fast) in the next 500 years, and given the state of our current knowledge of the biological sciences and biotechnology, transhumanism certainly cannot be ruled out at all, but it's rather likely.

We are already using some rudimentary transhumanist technologies: the combination of the human with the artificial. E.g. artificial electro-cardio stimulators for people with heart disease, artificial limbs etc. These are just the very beginnings of transhumanist technology.