This is a can of worms, and I'm going to regret doing this, but here goes.

I was recently introduced to the concept of something called a non-binary gender. Seriously, just heard of this today. I've heard the 'cisgender' thing slung around before, mostly ironically, but it's a cringeworthy term that annoys me to no small amount, and I hadn't considered the real opposite to that, or rather, the myriad of opposites that could exist to that.

So the problem here for me is the whole "gender identity" thing. Gender is NOT an identity. It's an attribute to your identity, yes, but it's not an identity in and of itself. I mean, if that's really all you have to go off of for defining yourself, then I suppose you gotta take what you can get, but seriously, how can that be all you have to go off of? If someone asked me for a word to describe myself, the last thing I'd pick is male. I mean, I'm a guy; I recognize this, but who cares? There's at least a hundred other words I'd use to describe myself before I'd fall back to male.* It's no less true and real, but when talking about the most important attributes, it's just not even ranking up there with the things I'd consider genuinely special and meaningful. Anyone who has a penis can be a male. Not anyone can be me.

I... need someone to explain this to me in such a way that it makes sense, and doesn't feel like someone is just inventing awkward conversation points or classifications for people for how much they feel like they buck sex-based stereotypes and expectations.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just don't understand people, and really would like to. This stuff is seriously alien to my train of thought.



* This is also assuming there's a situation where I'm being prodded to describe myself to people. Having to broadcast your identity to others is weird. If they want to know, they'll ask, or they'll learn from interaction with you. Life is social interaction, not acting like a facebook status update made of flesh.

To add on to that, not only would male be much lower on my list, but so would my sexual orientation.

Good point. I hadn't even considered that either.

Look at the people who actually care about gender. That should answer your questions.

Agreed my sexual preference and gender would be close to last on my list of ways to describe myself , weirdly age comes first in that situation.

I myself can get all other genders but non-binary? Sometimes I am a different gender or I have no defining gender............, practically, just what does that mean?

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed my sexual preference and gender would be close to last on my list of ways to describe myself , weirdly age comes first in that situation.

I myself can get all other genders but non-binary? Sometimes I am a different gender or I have no defining gender............, practically, just what does that mean?

It can be a difficult concept to grasp (and I personally dislike it because it makes things excessively complicated), but genders are not binary. There's the obvious difference in genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics, but past that it's just a difference in estrogen and testosterone levels. Give a man enough estrogen and he'll develop female characteristics. Give a woman enough testosterone and she'll develop male characteristics. Actual levels of t and e vary wildly from person to person. Then there are those that were actually born with undeveloped or mixed genitalia and that's a whole other ball game.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to the majority of the population. Most people are far predominantly "male" or "female."

The key thing is to remember that we are all human and gender is completely irrelevant to a person's value.

 daedalus wrote:
If someone asked me for a word to describe myself, the last thing I'd pick is male. I mean, I'm a guy; I recognize this, but who cares? There's at least a hundred other words I'd use to describe myself before I'd fall back to male.

Male, cisgender privilege, brah!

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Agreed my sexual preference and gender would be close to last on my list of ways to describe myself , weirdly age comes first in that situation.

I myself can get all other genders but non-binary? Sometimes I am a different gender or I have no defining gender............, practically, just what does that mean?

It can be a difficult concept to grasp (and I personally dislike it because it makes things excessively complicated), but genders are not binary. There's the obvious difference in genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics, but past that it's just a difference in estrogen and testosterone levels. Give a man enough estrogen and he'll develop female characteristics. Give a woman enough testosterone and she'll develop male characteristics. Actual levels of t and e vary wildly from person to person. Then there are those that were actually born with undeveloped or mixed genitalia and that's a whole other ball game.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to the majority of the population. Most people are far predominantly "male" or "female."

The key thing is to remember that we are all human and gender is completely irrelevant to a person's value.

The argument you would likely hear is that nothing in your post deals with gender, but instead deals with a persons sex.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to the majority of the population. Most people are far predominantly "male" or "female."

The key thing is to remember that we are all human and gender is completely irrelevant to a person's value.

So, I'm with you 100% right here, but I'm still left wondering why on earth it's so important if it's irrelevant to a person's value.

It seems, at least to some, to be all-important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
[
The argument you would likely hear is that nothing in your post deals with gender, but instead deals with a persons sex.

I'm not sure that leaves me less confused.

To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

That is an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

 daedalus wrote:
So the problem here for me is the whole "gender identity" thing. Gender is NOT an identity. It's an attribute to your identity, yes, but it's not an identity in and of itself. I mean, if that's really all you have to go off of for defining yourself, then I suppose you gotta take what you can get, but seriously, how can that be all you have to go off of? If someone asked me for a word to describe myself, the last thing I'd pick is male. I mean, I'm a guy; I recognize this, but who cares? There's at least a hundred other words I'd use to describe myself before I'd fall back to male.* It's no less true and real, but when talking about the most important attributes, it's just not even ranking up there with the things I'd consider genuinely special and meaningful. Anyone who has a penis can be a male. Not anyone can be me.

I think that's a pretty easy way to think about things when most of society thinks about your gender much the same way as you do.

I mean, I never thought much about being white, until I went to China and suddenly experienced being very different to everyone else. All of a sudden I became very conscious of my ethnicity. I imagine someone who is biologically one gender but doesn't feel the assumptions that surround that gender suit them would be very conscious of the difference and it would be very likely to become a major part of their identity.

Well, it is a complicated mess.

Part of the problem is that gender doesn't always match up with sex, but many people act like they always do. And that we often assign certain roles to certain genders that them get transfers do people of that sex.

It might be not so much that people focus their identity on their gender, but that it is more about gender roles.

I'm certainly no expect on the subject either.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

Well, thank you for confirming that you are a bigot and have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, a discussion of how round-earth theory is so absurd and anyone who doesn't accept a flat earth is in dire need of psychological counseling?

 daedalus wrote:
So, I'm with you 100% right here, but I'm still left wondering why on earth it's so important if it's irrelevant to a person's value.

People like to be understood. They like to be among people who get them and get how they think. Most people are able to take for granted that random people they meet will more or less get them, maybe they won't be best friends, but they won't have a huge gulf either. If there's something, like a non-standard gender identity, that keeps you from relating to regular people, well that's a problem that people want to solve.

 daedalus wrote:
I mean, if that's really all you have to go off of for defining yourself, then I suppose you gotta take what you can get, but seriously, how can that be all you have to go off of?

Obviously that isn't all there is to a person, but that's why it's called gender identity, not person identity. Gender identity simply refers to how you define yourself in a gender context, it doesn't mean that your primary (or only) defining characteristic is your gender.

If someone asked me for a word to describe myself, the last thing I'd pick is male. I mean, I'm a guy; I recognize this, but who cares? There's at least a hundred other words I'd use to describe myself before I'd fall back to male.* It's no less true and real, but when talking about the most important attributes, it's just not even ranking up there with the things I'd consider genuinely special and meaningful. Anyone who has a penis can be a male. Not anyone can be me.

What you need to recognize here is that you're able to say this because you have the privilege of having your chosen identity accepted without question by most people you encounter. It's very easy to say that being male isn't a very important part of you when you never have to justify that identity. If you were constantly having people question whether you're really a man, defaulting to female pronouns when talking about you, etc, you'd probably invest a lot more effort in saying "I AM A MAN" as part of your identity.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

Wow, it's like you're reading the lines of a villain in a mid-00s festival movie. The festival movies that sucked because they were so polemic that they were utterly unbelievable, because no-one could believe the other side of the argument would so mindlessly crude.

Everyone please remember that there are rules in the OT Forum.

Don't make useless spam posts.

 Peregrine wrote:


What you need to recognize here is that you're able to say this because you have the privilege of having your chosen identity accepted without question by most people you encounter. It's very easy to say that being male isn't a very important part of you when you never have to justify that identity. If you were constantly having people question whether you're really a man, defaulting to female pronouns when talking about you, etc, you'd probably invest a lot more effort in saying "I AM A MAN" as part of your identity.

Okay, I can understand that to some extent. Were I to resemble a woman, but be a man, it would probably bother me that people couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps we place too much significance on gender.

If that's the case though, why is it that the only place I've seen anyone make a big deal out of this (the internet) is the one place where we can't actually see each other? I would think, here, you could just state, "I'm a guy", if you identified as a guy, and it would be generally accepted as such.

 daedalus wrote:
If that's the case though, why is it that the only place I've seen anyone make a big deal out of this (the internet) is the one place where we can't actually see each other?

Because:

1) The internet is one of the safer places to discuss this kind of thing. You aren't going to risk being beaten to death for discussing your non-standard gender identity on the internet, something that is a very real problem in the offline world.

2) You probably don't have the right friends to see much offline discussion of it. This is something that varies tremendously depending on what communities you're part of. There are plenty of offline communities where gender identity is a big deal, you just don't seem to be part of them.

I would think, here, you could just state, "I'm a guy", if you identified as a guy, and it would be generally accepted as such.

It is generally, but that's not where these discussions tend to happen. It isn't just some random person making an intro post saying "gender: male" in their description, it's discussions where gender identity is a relevant topic. Either you have threads like this where people come in with personal experiences or bigoted s make stupid posts and have to be corrected, or you have online communities where people want to have discussions about the subject and you just happen to be an outside observer.

Gender = Social definitions of masculinity and femininity
Sex = Biological definitions of masculinity and femininity

 Peregrine wrote:

Well, thank you for confirming that you are a bigot and have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, a discussion of how round-earth theory is so absurd and anyone who doesn't accept a flat earth is in dire need of psychological counseling?

So you're claiming ignorance / bigotry when doing the very same? Smells like some mighty hypocrisy to me. And thanks for confirming your lack of manners.

Yes, it's a very ignorant viewpoint. It's mine. If you don't like it, deal with it. If you want to offend me for having it, then you're no better than the one you're flaming.

And in both cases, no one's really entirely clear cut towards either way.

Just like sexual orientation, sex and gender can range from male, female, or many states inbetween. It's just that most people tend to fall somewhere on the further sides of the scale of male or female. Most of the plumbing installation is finalized before birth, but all the plumbing is made from the same basic collection of parts, just modified for masculine or feminine features. Most intersexed people also fall somewhere on that scale, but are obviously more centralized than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Well, thank you for confirming that you are a bigot and have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, a discussion of how round-earth theory is so absurd and anyone who doesn't accept a flat earth is in dire need of psychological counseling?

So you're claiming ignorance / bigotry when doing the very same? Smells like some mighty hypocrisy to me. And thanks for confirming your lack of manners.

Yes, it's a very ignorant viewpoint. It's mine. If you don't like it, deal with it. If you want to offend me for having it, then you're no better than the one you're flaming.

It's not so much a viewpoint as it is being patently incorrect.

There might also be a 'full disclosure' element. If you're accustomed to people responding negatively, then you might just want to get it out of the way. No point spending ages getting to know someone if it's gonna turn out they're a donkey-cave.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, it's a very ignorant viewpoint. It's mine. If you don't like it, deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by telling you that you're ignorant and a bigot. Don't like it? Don't post ignorant and bigoted things in a public forum.

If you want to offend me for having it, then you're no better than the one you're flaming.

So if you call a KKK member a racist you're no better than the KKK member? I think we can all see how this is an absurd argument.

Having transgendered friends has done a lot to change my perceptions. They face significant obstacles in trivial things that most take for granted.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

That is an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

That may be.
But this is actually the first time I strongly agree with Sigvatr on something! Oh joyous day!
I just don't understand it I guess. You are either born male or female, there is nothing in between... I am of the opinion that people who feel they should be of a different gender just have a problem with accepting themselves, a problem that might be taken away with psychological help, instead of an expensive surgery that just turns you into a manwomanwomanman that will never look as female or male as an actual female or male. If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?
Feel free to disagree with me, but please, for the love of God, explain to me how there can be anything between man and woman!
I want to know.

 Ouze wrote:
Having transgendered friends has done a lot to change my perceptions. They face significant obstacles in trivial things that most take for granted.

Agreed. I know multiple people with these issues, and it affects them and their lives in a way that most people do not comprehend.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

I think there is some fairly convincing transsexuals out there, like Bailey Jay for example.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

Does it make the person in question happy?

If not, then it doesn't achieve the same result, now does it?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

That is an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

That may be.
But this is actually the first time I strongly agree with Sigvatr on something! Oh joyous day!
I just don't understand it I guess. You are either born male or female, there is nothing in between... I am of the opinion that people who feel they should be of a different gender just have a problem with accepting themselves, a problem that might be taken away with psychological help, instead of an expensive surgery that just turns you into a manwomanwomanman that will never look as female or male as an actual female or male. If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?
Feel free to disagree with me, but please, for the love of God, explain to me how there can be anything between man and woman!
I want to know.

Basically:

There are scientific definitions for what constitutes as a "male" and what constitutes as a "female".

It's possible to be born with genetics that give you the characteristics of both males and females.

It's also possible to change your characteristics so that you have female characteristics, or vice-versa.

- - - -

I think the issue is the context think about these things along. There is a scientific defitnion for alot of this stuff, and it's as close as one can get toward an objective opinion. Scientifically, it's possible to be of more than one gender. All you need is to have X or Y or XY physical characteristics.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

Well, thank you for confirming that you are a bigot and have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, a discussion of how round-earth theory is so absurd and anyone who doesn't accept a flat earth is in dire need of psychological counseling?

That's a little bit harsh. I disagree with Sigvatr, but his view certainly isn't uncommon. In a lot of cases, views like that stem from simple unfamiliarity, not necessarily bigotry. But of course, calling someone an ignorant bigot and dismissing their post out of hand is a much more useful approach than trying to illustrate the complexity of an issue that, judging from their response, they very likely haven't had much experience with.

I usually identify as male because the queue for the bathroom is always shorter.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are either born male or female, there is nothing in between...

And you are simply wrong about this. This isn't even something that is controversial among biologists, the neat black and white lines between male and female are just a useful approximation of a very messy subject. You can and do have various developmental problems that produce a mix of male and female characteristics, both physically and mentally.

I am of the opinion that people who feel they should be of a different gender just have a problem with accepting themselves, a problem that might be taken away with psychological help, instead of an expensive surgery that just turns you into a manwomanwomanman that will never look as female or male as an actual female or male.

And you are simply wrong about this. The ONLY reason to dismiss it as "just a problem with accepting themselves" is your persona lack of comfort with their problems. The actual experts in the subject pretty much unanimously agree that the best treatment for gender identity issues is hormones and/or surgery to bring the person's body in line with how their brain works. Attempting to convince them to "just accept who they are" works about as well as attempting to turn gay people straight.

If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

Define "natural". Or at least try to, because you're inevitably going to fail. There is no definition of "natural" that rules out fixing gender issues by fixing the body but doesn't rule out, say, treating cancer with "unnatural" cures.

Feel free to disagree with me, but please, for the love of God, explain to me how there can be anything between man and woman!

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

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

Do I presume you also disagree with fixing a baby's split palate, or an omphalocele, or heart defects?

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

Do I presume you also disagree with fixing a baby's split palate, or an omphalocele, or heart defects?

No, that is different. Those are defects. Being born with a certain gender and not liking it is not a defect.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are either born male or female, there is nothing in between...

And you are simply wrong about this. This isn't even something that is controversial among biologists, the neat black and white lines between male and female are just a useful approximation of a very messy subject. You can and do have various developmental problems that produce a mix of male and female characteristics, both physically and mentally.

You say so. I still have a hard time believing it, but that probably just means biology education in school is deficient.

 Peregrine wrote:

I am of the opinion that people who feel they should be of a different gender just have a problem with accepting themselves, a problem that might be taken away with psychological help, instead of an expensive surgery that just turns you into a manwomanwomanman that will never look as female or male as an actual female or male.

And you are simply wrong about this. The ONLY reason to dismiss it as "just a problem with accepting themselves" is your persona lack of comfort with their problems. The actual experts in the subject pretty much unanimously agree that the best treatment for gender identity issues is hormones and/or surgery to bring the person's body in line with how their brain works. Attempting to convince them to "just accept who they are" works about as well as attempting to turn gay people straight.

I guess so, I really don't know anything about the subject, so I will just shut up and listen to those experts you mention here. Could you point me towards one?

 Peregrine wrote:

If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

Define "natural". Or at least try to, because you're inevitably going to fail. There is no definition of "natural" that rules out fixing gender issues by fixing the body but doesn't rule out, say, treating cancer with "unnatural" cures.

Darn it, you sound just like my philosophy teacher now.

 Peregrine wrote:

Feel free to disagree with me, but please, for the love of God, explain to me how there can be anything between man and woman!

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

I had no idea.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, that is different. Those are defects. Being born with a certain gender and not liking it is not a defect.

Why not?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being born with a certain gender and not liking it is not a defect.

Yes it is. And it goes way beyond "not liking it". You're talking about people that have the brain "map" of one gender and the body of the other, resulting in a constant awareness that something is wrong. Imagine losing an arm but still trying to grab things with it because your brain still can't figure out that it is gone. Which is the better solution: give you a new arm, or convince you that you don't really need that arm anyway?

You say so. I still have a hard time believing it, but that probably just means biology education in school is deficient.

Biology education in school is massively simplified because there's a very limited amount of time to cover a lot of material. Approximating sex and gender as nice neat "male" and "female" categories is a useful tool because most of the time it does work that way. People with gender identity problems are a very small minority, and it doesn't make much sense to consider them when talking about things like the difference between male and female reproductive organs. But when you start talking about gender identity directly you need to remember that it's an approximation.

Here's an analogy: when you take a basic physics class you assume that Newtonian mechanics is correct even though we know that it indisputably isn't. Why? Because it's 99.9999999999999999999999% accurate in virtually every situation that you will ever encounter, and considering the relativistic model just adds in a lot of extra math. But if you want to do things like design GPS satellites you need to remember that Newtonian mechanics is just a convenient approximation and use the more accurate model.

Interesting.....

I suppose a lot of the gender identity issues can trace their roots back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Until quite recently there have been very fixed ideas as to how males and females are expected to behave and what jobs they're 'expected' to do, so it's not really surprising that a lot of people fell they have to define themselves by their gender and what society deems is appropriate for that gender. So there is the weight of centuries of expectation on how you should behave if you are male or female.

I'll quite freely admit, I am still sexist in some ways. I try not to be, and in some cases I know fine well that whatever I'm thinking or doing has no rational reason behind it in a modern society, but it's just difficult not to because when I grew up that's the way it was or that's how I was taught to behave with females. When I moved in with my partner she had a couple of little projects in mind that involved some DIY carpentry. As soon as she started prepping for the first project and got the saw out, I had to step up and make loud statements about how I would do it and it wasn't a problem and she didn't have to worry about it.

My other half is an engineer. I, on the other hand, am notoriously cack-handed. She had much more experience, training and natural ability with that kind of thing than I did and I still had to make a big show of taking over and doing it for her. And at the end of the day I did that because I'm a bloke, she's a girl, and blokes are 'expected' to do DIY stuff, and girls aren't.

Once the bleeding had mostly stopped and I was exiled away to play computer games so I wasn't underfoot anymore, I reflected on how completely daft I was being.

From a personal level I don't consciously feel that I define myself by my gender. But on reflection, subconsciously I do because I expect certain things of myself which shouldn't really matter but which do in some weird way purely because I am a bloke.

The thing is, I think it's automatic. No matter how much you suppress them you will still have these opinions on how people from a certain gender should behave, and by doing so you are in a way defining yourself by your own gender. Society is changing in this regard but it'll no doubt take a while before gender isn't a factor at all

 daedalus wrote:
Were I to resemble a woman, but be a man, it would probably bother me that people couldn't tell the difference.

People always confuse me for a woman on the phone, it annoys me. Especially when I correct them and they still call me madam...
I recently played some online game with audio chat, and people did not mistook me for a woman there. Maybe it is the way the phone change voices a bit?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think there is some fairly convincing transsexuals out there, like Bailey Jay for example.

Spoiler:

I am not sure I want to know what you mean by "convincing".

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

Not to dogpile on you here, but I felt this was an interesting point:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/02/us/study-links-brain-to-transsexuality.html

A structure deep within the brain, where the tangled roots of sexuality are thought to lie, differs substantially between ordinary men and transsexuals who have surgically transformed themselves from men into women, scientists have reported.

Essentially, the very structure of the brain is different, regardless of the physical qualities you were otherwise born with. That is, you may have a big ole donger hanging down, but if your brain is constantly telling you that you are a woman, that donger seems wrong and out of place. No amount of "learning to accept yourself" or other such things will change the fact that your very thought center is telling you something is wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:


I am dealing with it, by telling you that you're ignorant and a bigot. Don't like it? Don't post ignorant and bigoted things in a public forum.

So basically, you admit being a worse person than me - which is fine and no news. I simply shared my point of view and that's it. Do I take any action or offend those people in any way? Nope. I live by a strict "live and let live" philosophy (most of the time). Let them live the way they want to, it's their basic given right as with every human being.

You, on the other hand, feel that there's a need to openly insult another person because you disagree with said person's point of view. Not only are you rude and immature, but you also prove being a hypocrit.

Then again, Peregrine insisting on his point of view being the only correct one, hands down, isn't any news to the forums.

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If that makes the person in question happier, it is good I guess, but couldn't the same result have been achieved in a more 'natural' way?

What 'natural' way are you talking about?

The way in which a person is born seems the natural one to me.

Do I presume you also disagree with fixing a baby's split palate, or an omphalocele, or heart defects?

That's a poor analogy honestly.

cleft lips and split palates and the other things you mentioned are birth defects caused by the fetus not developing properly.

Someone being born a man or woman wasn't an accident, they developed properly from the gametes that made up the embryo.

Nope. I live by a strict "live and let live" philosophy.

Except that you don't follow your own philosophy it appears.

I don't think that telling your fellow Dakkanauts that they are as delusional as people that believe in rainbow unicorns and that they are in deep need of psychological counseling falls under "let live".

blaktoof wrote:

Someone being born a man or woman wasn't an accident, they developed properly from the gametes that made up the embryo.

How about sickle cell, or colorblindness?

 daedalus wrote:
Gender is NOT an identity

Is black an identity? Identities exist because someone identifies with them. Someone can have multiple identities that make up the whole of their person;

I am straight, white, Christian, male, liberal on social policies, moderate in economic policies, a gamer, a historian, a writer, a self described professional hipster, and damned sexy.

Each of those things can be taken as a separate identity that makes up the whole of my person. Naturally, I think so people identify with some aspects of themselves more strong than others. I care a lot more about history, Christianity, and writing than I do about my general political leanings. I identify much more with those than I do politics. My identity as white or male has never really been an issue for me, so I can't even say I don't care about them nor do I care about them. As issues they seem so distant to me in a normal sense. That doesn't mean though that a gay man feels the same, especially when someone who identifies a lot with their Christianness decides to tell them to go to hell for kissing their boyfriend. Or worse, a gay man who is Christian and struggles to reconcile the beliefs of those around with what being Christian means with another aspect of themselves.

I just don't understand people, and really would like to.

Wouldn't we all

 d-usa wrote:


I don't think that telling your fellow Dakkanauts that they are as delusional as people that believe in rainbow unicorns and that they are in deep need of psychological counseling falls under "let live".

I never said that.

To me, non-binary gender is on about the same level of validity as rainbow unicorns.

"To me". If you disagree, that's fine.

anyways...

Non-binary gender is a catchall category for people who do not identify as man or woman, but identify as both or somewhere inbetween.

Maybe a guy likes acting like a woman, and feels girl and wears dresses and has a beard but prefers to only have sexual relations with women.

it also is a blanket umbrella term for people who feel like they do not belong to either gender.

Also it covers people who are "genderfluid" and their gender changes from random time to random time, for whatever reason.

Also its a label for people who dislike gender labels. yes I realize the hypocrisy in that statement but it exists in some persons.

All of these are based on both genetic, and environmental reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Someone being born a man or woman wasn't an accident, they developed properly from the gametes that made up the embryo.

How about sickle cell, or colorblindness?

I am colorblind.

Although both of those things are "bad", they were not accidents and were basically the "map" or "blueprints" from the DNA and are not in error, nor are they birth defects.

Bad genes getting passed along isn't an error, it is what "nature" intended.

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

 Sigvatr wrote:

You either are a man or a woman. Or in dire need of psychological counceling.

Not "let live"...

To sigvatr's point, and d-usa and others arguing with him....

Whether you agree with his stance on this issue, would you say that "most" people who identify with a gender not of their biological parts, or who have incomplete parts of multiple genders, etc. do "need" psychological help? Isn't seeing a shrink part of any gender reassignment procedure?

Truth is, a ton of people "need" help from some form of shrink or another, and for a variety of reasons. All of them are equally valid..

blaktoof wrote:

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

Without trying to put too many words in his mouth, as I am reading what was written here..... He's saying that being male or female is the normal state of things. Being "unhappy" or "unable to identify with" the gender that your genetics gave you is NOT a defect, it's a mental health issue.

here is a "helpful" image for non-binary gender.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Whether you agree with his stance on this issue, would you say that "most" people who identify with a gender not of their biological parts, or who have incomplete parts of multiple genders, etc. do "need" psychological help?

Generally speaking, the philosophy of psychologists is that if you can function in society normally, then you don't need help (maybe it'll be a good idea, but not necessarily needed). Most people with phobias could probably use a psychologist or therapist to get over their phobia, but unless its debilitating they can function without treatment. Typically, feeling like a woman while being a man doesn't prevent one from being functional in society.

Isn't seeing a shrink part of any gender reassignment procedure?

Yes but not because they need help. it's part of the process of ensuring that someone getting sex reassignment is mentally prepared for the procedure and the changes that will come to their life following it, as well to cover the doctor's back and ensure that there isn't an underlying condition effecting the patient's judgement. It's really more of a formality these days than an actual necessity.

My point is not really that you have to agree that non-binary gender is a thing. You can have the opinion that it's not real, and you can even explain why you think that. You just have to explain how without violating Rule #1.

Saying that people are rainbow unicorn crazy and need psychological counseling to confirm with what you think is normal is violating Rule #1. It is rude, insulting, and directly affects all the non-binary gender Dakkanauts that are reading this thread. Trying to handwave that away with " that's just my opinion" doesn't work.

Thinking about the impact that our words will have on our fellow Dakkanauts shouldn't be that complicated.

I have a very narrow view point on topics such as these.
I don't really understand the feelings/thoughts people have when they can't identify with their actualy gender so I really just don't make any judgements on it.
I think its weird but at the same time I understand that its not something I understand so I cannot react harshely to something I can't even comprehend.

My thoughts on homosexaulity/asexual/transgender, pretty much anything that the "norm" follow that same pattern, I don't understand it so I don't judge. Would look foolish for commenting on something I've never experienced.

1. Are you hurting me? No.

2. Are you hurting other people? No.

3. Are you happier doing whatever you're doing? Yes.

Carry on.

feth I love living in a liberal democracy where the rights of individuals to express themselves in nonharmful ways are not impeded by the dogma and tyranny of others.




NEXT!

Yes but not because they need help. it's part of the process of ensuring that someone getting sex reassignment is mentally prepared for the procedure and the changes that will come to their life following it, as well to cover the doctor's back and ensure that there isn't an underlying condition effecting the patient's judgement. It's really more of a formality these days than an actual necessity.

not quite.

the psych eval has to be performed by a psychologist experienced with gender disorders, and their eval has to be examined by another mental health professional to verify it as valid. They have to be diagnosed with not just having feelings, but having the transexualism condition as described by the DSM-IV, also known as gender identity disorder.

The first step involves making certain that there are no other psychological or psychiatric co-existing conditions that cause severe distress for the person, and in some cases may be the true cause of the desire to change sex. Examples might be: schizophrenia, substance abuse, homosexuality that is not psychologically acceptable to the person, and borderline personality disorder.

Next in the psychological treatment is to determine the emotional stability of the person with Gender Identity Disorder. While many have experienced extreme emotional discomfort from having to appear as a member of the sex opposite of the one they believe themselves to be psychologically, it is important that there be basic emotional stability present before the medical procedures can begin.

The above processes should normally take a year or more to evaluate.


There are many people who think they have gender identity disorder, or "decided" they had it when in fact they had other psychological problems. In some cases they are not allowed gender reassignment surgery, and in some they convince someone that they should get it and they often regret it after.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

the above link is a site hosted by someone who had a sex change. There are many people who had "other" psychological issues and thought they had gender identity disorder and regretted their decision, and there are other people who had gender identity disorder, and they had the sex change, and it wasn't enough and that made them worse. So sometimes gender "reassignment" is actually a bad idea.

I've got a buddy I went to high school with. In HS, he was a she, and id known him since we we're wee young ones. In high school his sexual orientation flitted between straight, bi, and lesbian (not the same as gender, but it's what we had to work with as young kids) We went to different colleges and lost contact for a few years. I got a friend request from a dude with his last name and thought it was a cousin. Did some Facebook stalking and discovered that he was going through some serious gak involving body dysphoria and almost had to drop out of school. He started seeing a shrink and dealt with his issues and started to identify as male, legally changed his name, etc.. his parents don't really understand it, but support him the same.

As MGS said, is it making him happier? Yeah it is, though he has admitted he hasn't gotten the hang of peeing standing up.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
1. Are you hurting me? No.

2. Are you hurting other people? No.

3. Are you happier doing whatever you're doing? Yes.

Carry on.

feth I love living in a liberal democracy where the rights of individuals to express themselves in nonharmful ways are not impeded by the dogma and tyranny of others.




NEXT!

This is pretty much my comment all things of this type. Does it impact me in any way? No? Good, have at it.

That is true, and it is why there is the evaluation process. There still are genuine cases.

blaktoof wrote:


I am colorblind.

Although both of those things are "bad", they were not accidents and were basically the "map" or "blueprints" from the DNA and are not in error, nor are they birth defects.

Bad genes getting passed along isn't an error, it is what "nature" intended.

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

No, the contrary, actually. Having a strongly typed gender seems like the option that couldn't be a birth defect.

It was suggested that a split palate and heart defects are different from "unconventional" gender identities and thus not a defect because the gametes are properly formed in the latter. However, it seems to me as though we're classifying conditions we do consider disorders of a sort, such as colorblindness and sickle cell, which are genetic conditions that occur in people whom have developed properly from birth, differently than gender identity. It seems inconsistent.

I suppose that there's a particular pragmatism at work where the notion that someone of an unconventional gender identity otherwise leads an unaffected and functional life outside of when he or she or it or whatever gendered pronoun is applicable in any selected case is challenged by incumbent social mores, but the same could be said for a colorblind person until you let them dress themselves or play trivial pursuit.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
1. Are you hurting me? No.

2. Are you hurting other people? No.

3. Are you happier doing whatever you're doing? Yes.

Carry on.

feth I love living in a liberal democracy where the rights of individuals to express themselves in nonharmful ways are not impeded by the dogma and tyranny of others.




NEXT!

Exalted!

unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

blaktoof wrote:
unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

I had a buddy in the army that was color blind (there are only two MOSs, jobs, in the army that he had available being colorblind. And one was medic ) and basically the way he described it was, where you and I see a pink shirt, or green grass his brain doesn't process/register those as green... He knows, academically that the color pink comes from using a combination of red and white to create a paler color; But when he sees something pink, his brain may tell him it's "blue" or some other color. I guess, really it was that his brain was wired wrong so he saw things in a pink floyd kind of way all the time?

 d-usa wrote:
My point is not really that you have to agree that non-binary gender is a thing. You can have the opinion that it's not real, and you can even explain why you think that. You just have to explain how without violating Rule #1.

Saying that people are rainbow unicorn crazy and need psychological counseling to confirm with what you think is normal is violating Rule #1. It is rude, insulting, and directly affects all the non-binary gender Dakkanauts that are reading this thread. Trying to handwave that away with " that's just my opinion" doesn't work.

Thinking about the impact that our words will have on our fellow Dakkanauts shouldn't be that complicated.

"To me". Did I call out anyone? No. If we do have people on Dakka who think that they aren't male or female, then why would they be offended by a broad statement by a singular member, not representing the official side of Dakka? I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa. I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

blaktoof wrote:
unrelated but most colorblind people can see every color. Depends on what type of colorblind you are.

for me

If the size of the colored object is close to objects of different colors, then they cannot see it, for example orange writing on a green background, no way I can see that. Take a piece of orange paper and a piece of green paper and put them next to each other and i can tell you just as fast as a non colorblind person which is which.

The tests that have all the colors and the numbers, most of them are designed so there is a certain number you see if you are not colorblind, if you are a certain type(s) of colorblind you see a different number [ironically people who aren't colorblind cannot see this number..] and if you are another rare type of colorblind you don't see any number.

Some people cannot see certain colors at all, but that is a very rare form of color blindness.

I know all about it. I have protanomaly, diagnosed toward the end of kindergarten. Turns out I'm the 1% after all.

My mom still gives me crap about the most hideous clothes I used to think were okay looking when I was young.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period.

So how do you classify the human beings that have a combination of both male and female physical attribute? (And I am speaking very specific physical attributes like penis, vaginas, those kind of stuff)
No need to go too deep into specifics, but having at least a rough notion would be nice.

Wow, it's almost like you didn't read anything I actually said, so let's try again.

 Sigvatr wrote:


"To me". Did I call out anyone? No.

Yes. You called out anyone that doesn't fit your idea of what is right by placing them on the same level as people who believe in rainbow unicorns and telling them that they need psychological counseling.

The "to me" doesn't change any of that. Let's take two hypothetical statements:

"d-usa is an donkey-cave": clear Rule #1 violation.
"To me d-usa is an donkey-cave": now suddenly not a Rule #1 violation because it means that I am suddenly not an donkey-cave except "to you"?

There is zero logic in the statement of "I'm not saying that you are all delusional people in need of psychological treatments, I'm just saying that "I" think that you are all delusional people in need of psychological treatment.

If we do have people on Dakka who think that they aren't male or female, then why would they be offended by a broad statement by a singular member, not representing the official side of Dakka?

Because telling them that they are mentally ill and delusional is offensive, even if it is only said by a singular member. Your status as a non-official voice of dakka" is irrelevant to that.

I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa.

It's almost like I addressed that as well...

d-usa wrote:My point is not really that you have to agree that non-binary gender is a thing. You can have the opinion that it's not real, and you can even explain why you think that. You just have to explain how without violating Rule #1.

I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

And nobody has to live with you calling them names, mentally ill, and delusional. Same as you don't have to put up with people calling you bigot.

You can believe it's not a real thing, I can believe it's a real thing. You don't get to call people that you don't agree with delusional and mentally ill, I don't get to call you an donkey-cave or a bigot.

It's simple stuff really.

It is, actually.

And it is already covered here.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

In particular:

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.

In this regard, MGS and I are on the same page.

If what you are doing isn't affecting anyone else, then knock yourself out. Enjoy it, be it, go have fun.

If you can't be happy with other people's enjoyment, especially when it isn't even affecting you, then you need mental help.

Find important phone numbers for your mental health here.

Call today.

 daedalus wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


I am colorblind.

Although both of those things are "bad", they were not accidents and were basically the "map" or "blueprints" from the DNA and are not in error, nor are they birth defects.

Bad genes getting passed along isn't an error, it is what "nature" intended.

Are you implying that being male or female sexed is a birth defect?

No, the contrary, actually. Having a strongly typed gender seems like the option that couldn't be a birth defect.

It was suggested that a split palate and heart defects are different from "unconventional" gender identities and thus not a defect because the gametes are properly formed in the latter. However, it seems to me as though we're classifying conditions we do consider disorders of a sort, such as colorblindness and sickle cell, which are genetic conditions that occur in people whom have developed properly from birth, differently than gender identity. It seems inconsistent.

I suppose that there's a particular pragmatism at work where the notion that someone of an unconventional gender identity otherwise leads an unaffected and functional life outside of when he or she or it or whatever gendered pronoun is applicable in any selected case is challenged by incumbent social mores, but the same could be said for a colorblind person until you let them dress themselves or play trivial pursuit.

I understand what you are saying.

I was not really touching on the issue of gender identity in my original post, some fo the things people mentioned such as cleft lip, color blindness, cleft palate, sickle cell, heart defects. Some of these are caused solely by the genetic map that is our DNA, some of them could be caused by other reasons that cause birth defects ranging from poor diets, alcohol use, drug use, smoking, too much caffeine, exposure to chemicals, etc.

None of those however have a emotional, mental, or societal component in the same way gender identity does.

For example, your chromosomal DNA may be XY making you what most people would consider biologicall a man, but perhaps you have other genetic traits that lead your brain to function similarly in a "feminine" way or to produce more estrogen and less testosterone than a normal man, or perhaps there is something nebulous unreleated to those things wherein you feel you are feminine. The issue of gender identity is difficult due to long standing gender roles in various cultures, which in some haven't changed much over time. The identity of being colorblind for example doesn't have these issues, stigmas associated with it.

Perhaps "nature" intended for a person with XY chromosomes to be a man, but for other genetic reasons to have feminine tendencies. Maybe that is natural, but maybe societal pressure to belong to one or the other genders makes someone feel compelled that they are female, or male, instead of male with feminine tendencies. Some people might think its harder to feel like you are feminine in thought and action in a male body, than being feminine and thought in a male body that is basically cut up to made to look feminine because of how other people perceive you, and how you see yourself when you look at yourself.

before I commit the sin of rambling so much my point is lost:

gender identity most likely has components to it that are not completely genetic, or hereditary, and the decision and perception of someones gender carries with it connotations an ideals that are in line with society's constructed views on gender that may not mean much in relation to genetics. In those regards comparing it to something like color blindness or a cleft lip is not very accurate, as many people with color blindness do not feel like they are someone else trapped in a colorblind body, and they aren't worried about how society will view them, etc.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think there is some fairly convincing transsexuals out there, like Bailey Jay for example.

Spoiler:

I am not sure I want to know what you mean by "convincing".

What I mean by convincing is if you didn't know she had a penis you would probably think she is a girl with nothing unusual about her physically.

Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

I was under the impression it was extremely hard.

Well, maybe it is to be convincing when naked, I have no idea. I have barely seen people naked anyway, so...
But clothed and with makeup, depending on your build, it can be not so hard.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I think you can achieve that relatively easy even without any kind of surgery. That is what make-up is for.
I mean, cosplayers can do it, so I am not surprised.

What is your point?

For many MtF transgendered folks "passing", or to use Cheesecat's terminology, being "convincing", is difficult and often requires hormone treatments and various levels of cosmetic surgery. Some people are blessed with less masculine body frames and hair growth which allow them to pass easier than others, but "relatively easy" as you say I am not sure. Relative to what? Relative to a genetic female getting ready for the day? Probably not. A MtF transgendered woman who isn't using hormones and hasn't had any surgery will likely spend more time and more effort trying to display as female. And remember, passing can at times be a matter of life or death. Violence against trans people remains extremely high.

So, no. In most cases I don't think passing on the level that Bailey Jay does (one of those genetic males who could almost pass as a female even before she had breast augmentation surgery) is relatively easy.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
What is your point?

That I am not surprised some transgender people can be "convincing'. Not that it is easy for all of them, of course.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
What is your point?

That I am not surprised some transgender people can be "convincing'. Not that it is easy for all of them, of course.

Okay. Not really a point, but okay.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't believe in non-binary gender. Period. Nothing that can be said will change that. If you cannot accept that attitude, then that's your problem, not mine. Same goes vice-versa. I have to live with people not sharing my point of view, they have to live with me not sharing theirs.

Plenty of people didn't believe the earth went around the sun, or that diseases weren't caused by something other than by miasma, or that the shape of the skull spoke to the merits of a race. Even long after the mainstream experts on in the science community came to consensus on the facts, still they didn't believe. They were wrong, profoundly and indisputably wrong. There was not a sliver of validity or merit in their ideas, not even a shadow of a half-truth. You are every bit as wrong. Your misplaced pride in your ignorance is more than simple disagreement, it actually has the potential to hurt those affected by these issues. If you're going to demand respect say something respectable first.

I usually try to keep out of the off-topic debates, but I would like to weigh in here. I did my dissertation in gender identity theory, and have received a few awards for my essays in the field.

It is accepted convention, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, to use 'sex' to refer to an individual's biological characteristics, and 'gender' to their social traits. In trans-friendly circles, it is convention to take the individual's gender identification at their word.

This leads to something called the 'three bodies problem':
Individual A - male bodied, male gendered.
Individual B - male bodied, female gendered.
Individual C - female bodied, female gendered.
However, in this argument, all of them share precisely the same social traits - they are all into makeup, wear dresses, enjoy quad biking and the films of Quentin Tarantino etc (what the traits don't matter, just that they are the same.)

So if we take A, B and C at their word, their gender identity doesn't signify anything real about their traits, as they can be attached freely to the male (A) or the female (B, C).

So, instead we could try saying that a person's gender is determined by their sex, as some of the more conservative dakkanauts have suggested. But this doesn't actually work in real life, as we can see that male-sexed individuals exhibit a whole variety of social traits (the existence of transexual individuals should show this plainly).

What we end up with is gender as a concept not really meaning anything concrete about the individual. This applies to binary and non-binary identities alike - if there is nothing about one's social role which can be said to make a man a man (or vice versa) then it makes no sense to say "I am non-binary, whatever this 'man' thing is I am not it".

(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post Script - this isn't at all an argument against transexual individuals having access to hormones and surgeries; it is still completely possible to have a map of the body in the brain which does not match up the body, but 'map' is what we use the word 'gender' to mean.

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Not really a point, but okay.

Well, at least it is not rude, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant or stupid. At least I hope so. I find comfort in small things.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I was asked to do this in a theories course once. Don't try. It hurts

SOCIAL charateristics are subjective, so asking for anything definitave from an area that by definition, wont be definitive, is absurd.

Its like asking for a defining social characteristic of "good tasting food", everyone will have a different, legitimate answer as its subjective in nature.

However, gender is not a social construct, it is a physical reality based on physical things (like genetics ect) so its a farce to disclude the only meaningfull evidence for/against something simply because it does not fit your narritive.


as it is, anyone is welcome to consider whatever they want as part of their "identity" wether that be related to what naughty bits they do/do not have, or if they want to identify as a chair, hey go for it, pursuit of happyness and all that.

however, identity is not a physical construct, and does not take precedence over actual reality.

so while someone can certainly be free to identify as a woman, if they were physically born a man, they dont get to compete in the womans olympics for instance.

How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

This seems like a pure semantical argument over the word 'gender'. Replace 'gender' wih 'gender identiy', and I don't think most people would have such a reaction to it, becasue, after all, who really gives 2 cheerios how someone else feels comfortable dressing and acting if it doesn't harm anyone.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, at least it is not rude, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant or stupid. At least I hope so. I find comfort in small things.

I don't know. You likened MtF trans folks to cosplayers when it came to make up use. I think that is a little rude and stupid considering one group uses make up to blend into society and another group uses make up to pretend they are pop culture characters. That may not have been your intention but that is how your comment read to me.

 jasper76 wrote:
How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

I ont see why that is an issue... they are hermaphrodites, we have a term for that psyical reality when someone has both.

there is no "social definition" of hermaphrodite roles, and any given are inherently flawed for the reasons I mentioned,

there is however, a physical definition that is universal.


gender =/= gender identity they are not equivelent.


the words that would actually be more interchangable would be identity = gender identy (or GI is part of an overal identity)

basically, no one gives two cheerios over what you identify as,

people only care once that person starts to assert that their "identity" overides psyical realities.

IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

Sigvatr, Iron Captain:
Even biological gender is not "binary". You can have people who are XX, people who are XY. That's the "norm" in the vast majority of cases. But it is a fact that you can also have people who are XXX, XXY, XYY and so on. Rare cases, often not "traditional" transexuals, more likely suffering from a variety of genetic complaints due to the extra chromosomes interfering with gene expression.

And I mean, that's just looking at it from a pure chromosome level, which is awfully simplistic. Each of those sex chromosomes is absolutely chock full of genes that are linked to gender (and in the case of the X chromosome, numerous other things). Different people have different alleles of these genes which express different proteins, with different results. Some might express different levels of different proteins at various developmental stages, non-functional proteins, or no protein at all, blah blah blah you get the picture- it's incredibly complicated.

It is not possible to say in any kind of definitive way whether transgendered people's feeling of being transgendered is "natural" (I mean, if we're taking natural here to mean "The result of their genes") or "psychological". It's not even helpful to think in those terms, but I am trying to put this across in a way that you might feel is conclusive. The brain and the influence of genetics on things like personality traits is extremely poorly understood. These things are likely to be heavily polygenic and to throw up surprising exceptions and weirdness that is not covered in any genetics course covered by non specialists.

And that's not even going near the interaction of genes and environment, which is another huge kettle of fish entirely.

To put it bluntly, there is plenty of room in biology for more than 2 "genders", and plenty of room for gender confusion to be "natural" (as useless as that term is).

 easysauce wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:


(As an aside, if anybody can come up with the defining social characteristic of 'man' or 'woman' without reference to biology, I welcome the attempt)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I was asked to do this in a theories course once. Don't try. It hurts

SOCIAL charateristics are subjective, so asking for anything definitave from an area that by definition, wont be definitive, is absurd.

Its like asking for a defining social characteristic of "good tasting food", everyone will have a different, legitimate answer as its subjective in nature.

However, gender is not a social construct, it is a physical reality based on physical things (like genetics ect) so its a farce to disclude the only meaningfull evidence for/against something simply because it does not fit your narritive.


as it is, anyone is welcome to consider whatever they want as part of their "identity" wether that be related to what naughty bits they do/do not have, or if they want to identify as a chair, hey go for it, pursuit of happyness and all that.

however, identity is not a physical construct, and does not take precedence over actual reality.

so while someone can certainly be free to identify as a woman, if they were physically born a man, they dont get to compete in the womans olympics for instance.

'Gender' as the term is used today i.e. " the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)." defined by a cursory google, is a social construct. Its used to contrast the term 'sex', being the biological characteristics. You can use the term 'gender' to mean 'sex' if you wish, as we did in the 1950s before the work of Money, Hampson and Hampson, but you will fail to communicate clearly with people who are versed in the subject.

Saying this, I am interested by the fact that you term biology the the "only meaningfull evidence" on the subject. I agree that there is no meaningful social characteristic that makes a man a man, even within a given culture like America. As soon as one is suggested, one can point immediately to another individual who defies the definition. So it is only sex (rather than 'gender' as we now use the term) that has any concrete meaning. Even then, sex is much less clearly defined than we give it credit for.

 easysauce wrote:
IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

Gotcha....I couldn't give 2 cheerios about the Olympics, or whether men do or don't compete against women in leisure activities, so I guess I don't have an opinion on how this works out in sports. Male and Female-designated facilities I suppose are the only area where I see this having much meaning.

You are missing the point crystal.

Biology is the only evidence for GENDER (which is still the proper term for it, despite some people wanting its definition to change, this is still an acceptable and in use term for sex)

Regardless of anyones opinion of if the proper term is gender or sex,

how ever you want to label the nomenclature for "this is the term for person with ____ biological features man/woman/hermaphrodite/ect/ect" it is rooted in a measureable, physical way.

identities, are rooted in social constructs, and are inherantly subjective, what is maculine one place is effeminate in another.


One is 100% not defined by the other, you can have xy genes and a penis (physical male by definition) and still have, and be accepted/welcomed lovingly/warmly/ect, as a female(or other) identity.

One is a physical construct, one is a mental(social) construct.

Hence why asking for physcal proof of a non physical thing is absurd.

blaktoof wrote:

Yes but not because they need help. it's part of the process of ensuring that someone getting sex reassignment is mentally prepared for the procedure and the changes that will come to their life following it, as well to cover the doctor's back and ensure that there isn't an underlying condition effecting the patient's judgement. It's really more of a formality these days than an actual necessity.

not quite.

the psych eval has to be performed by a psychologist experienced with gender disorders, and their eval has to be examined by another mental health professional to verify it as valid. They have to be diagnosed with not just having feelings, but having the transexualism condition as described by the DSM-IV, also known as gender identity disorder.

The first step involves making certain that there are no other psychological or psychiatric co-existing conditions that cause severe distress for the person, and in some cases may be the true cause of the desire to change sex. Examples might be: schizophrenia, substance abuse, homosexuality that is not psychologically acceptable to the person, and borderline personality disorder.

Next in the psychological treatment is to determine the emotional stability of the person with Gender Identity Disorder. While many have experienced extreme emotional discomfort from having to appear as a member of the sex opposite of the one they believe themselves to be psychologically, it is important that there be basic emotional stability present before the medical procedures can begin.

The above processes should normally take a year or more to evaluate.


There are many people who think they have gender identity disorder, or "decided" they had it when in fact they had other psychological problems. In some cases they are not allowed gender reassignment surgery, and in some they convince someone that they should get it and they often regret it after.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

the above link is a site hosted by someone who had a sex change. There are many people who had "other" psychological issues and thought they had gender identity disorder and regretted their decision, and there are other people who had gender identity disorder, and they had the sex change, and it wasn't enough and that made them worse. So sometimes gender "reassignment" is actually a bad idea.

Educational

Oh, and I'm entirely neutral on gender reassignment therapy. In some cases it works well for people, in other cases it doesn't. I think though that it's such a long term process that hopefully people who are not fully committed would be weeded out.

I know a person from University who is going through reassignment at the moment, and I was a little nervous when I heard it, for the reason that this is someone who is given to dramatic gestures and changes of tack- was initially a fervent christian, then a militant atheist, and has bounced from cause to cause since then. But I'd not say anything to them about it, because in the end of the day it's their choice and you've got to let people make their own decisions.

 jasper76 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

Gotcha....I couldn't give 2 cheerios about the Olympics, or whether men do or don't compete against women in leisure activities, so I guess I don't have an opinion on how this works out in sports. Male and Female-designated facilities I suppose are the only area where I see this having much meaning.

right, exactly,


its basically a non issue, and really, shouldnt be an issue at all as we could easily have men+women+everything else all competing in the same division.

that we have such divisions at all is mainly due to phsycal differences between people (IE men in general can lift more weight then woman, so its not fair for them to compete in the same division), and social reasons (IE women dont want to change in the same room at the YMCA as men as they dont want to be seen naked)


personally, I am all for everyone doing everything in one big group, but I am also ok with separating things.

some people will have problems with either solution, I think the way we have it now just causes the least # of people to be "left out" as it were.

 easysauce wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

I ont see why that is an issue... they are hermaphrodites, we have a term for that psyical reality when someone has both.

there is no "social definition" of hermaphrodite roles, and any given are inherently flawed for the reasons I mentioned,

there is however, a physical definition that is universal.


gender =/= gender identity they are not equivelent.


the words that would actually be more interchangable would be identity = gender identy (or GI is part of an overal identity)

basically, no one gives two cheerios over what you identify as,

people only care once that person starts to assert that their "identity" overides psyical realities.

IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

That's compelling to me. In most venues, we don't expect women to be able to physically compete with men. Is that archaic, or is it a valid segregation? Should someone with a male sex be able to compete against women because ((s)he?) feels like ((s)he?) should be a woman?

That is an interesting question with few easy answers, alright. It's only going to come up in a vanishingly small number of cases, but I believe it has come up recently- in the last olympics?

 easysauce wrote:


Biology is the only evidence for GENDER (which is still the proper term for it, despite some people wanting its definition to change, this is still an acceptable and in use term for sex)

Regardless of anyones opinion of if the proper term is gender or sex,

how ever you want to label the nomenclature for "this is the term for person with ____ biological features man/woman/hermaphrodite/ect/ect" it is rooted in a measureable, physical way.

OK, we won't get into whether or not the meaning of words is allowed to change over time. If its worth anything, the definition I took was the one that comes up for 'definition of gender' on the main page of google, so is at least very common.

 easysauce wrote:

identities, are rooted in social constructs, and are inherantly subjective, what is maculine one place is effeminate in another.


One is 100% not defined by the other, you can have xy genes and a penis (physical male by definition) and still have, and be accepted/welcomed lovingly/warmly/ect, as a female(or other) identity.

One is a physical construct, one is a mental(social) construct.

Hence why asking for physcal proof of a non physical thing is absurd.

One cannot have a physical proof of a social construct. What you can have is a definition. For example, justice/law is a social construct, but it has a clear definition, being a big book of rules. If the definition of law varied from person to person, we would have anarchy. However, the definition of 'man' does this, being intensely subjective. This doesn't mean that everyone is right, it means that when we say 'man' to mean things other than 'has a penis' we aren't communicating very well at all.

daedalus wrote:

That's compelling to me. In most venues, we don't expect women to be able to physically compete with men. Is that archaic, or is it a valid segregation? Should someone with a male sex be able to compete against women because ((s)he?) feels like ((s)he?) should be a woman?

In most athletic venues/cases, it is a valid segregation. I cannot think of a single sport where a women's World Record time/score is higher than any of their male counterparts. On the flip side of this... We allow women into men's locker rooms in places like the NFL, NBA, etc. due to "equal rights" for women in the press... yet, I don't believe that we allow male sports journalists into the "women's locker room" for post match/game interviews.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

One cannot have a physical proof of a social construct. What you can have is a definition. For example, justice/law is a social construct, but it has a clear definition, being a big book of rules. If the definition of law varied from person to person, we would have anarchy. However, the definition of 'man' does this, being intensely subjective. This doesn't mean that everyone is right, it means that when we say 'man' to mean things other than 'has a penis' we aren't communicating very well at all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610618.page

There ya go

I am male and like being male, it's great I'm glad I'm not a woman. Because it makes getting naked with my wife much more fun. I also like male things, working hard and working out doors. I enjoy making things with my hands I enjoy sports. I am probably what people would say is a traditional male in every way. I'm glad I'm not confused about my gender and feel sorry for people who are, it must be an awful.

I remain a happy man who is, partially at least defined by my gender.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

daedalus wrote:

That's compelling to me. In most venues, we don't expect women to be able to physically compete with men. Is that archaic, or is it a valid segregation? Should someone with a male sex be able to compete against women because ((s)he?) feels like ((s)he?) should be a woman?

In most athletic venues/cases, it is a valid segregation. I cannot think of a single sport where a women's World Record time/score is higher than any of their male counterparts. On the flip side of this... We allow women into men's locker rooms in places like the NFL, NBA, etc. due to "equal rights" for women in the press... yet, I don't believe that we allow male sports journalists into the "women's locker room" for post match/game interviews.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

One cannot have a physical proof of a social construct. What you can have is a definition. For example, justice/law is a social construct, but it has a clear definition, being a big book of rules. If the definition of law varied from person to person, we would have anarchy. However, the definition of 'man' does this, being intensely subjective. This doesn't mean that everyone is right, it means that when we say 'man' to mean things other than 'has a penis' we aren't communicating very well at all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/610618.page

There ya go

that comment about men and women in each others locker rooms has long standing issues within society in western cultures, which is the reason despite the fact 40% of rape victims are men, only 2%of rape victims are men due to the definition of what rape is versus what other sexual violations are.

There are lot of double standards that exist because of the idea of "woman" and the idea of "man" that having nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

the reason the segregation in sports exists is purely biological, despite how someone may identify or what plastic surgery they have had to make their sex phenotype appear to be something other than their sex genotype, they are still men or women. Unless you have specific genetic abnormalities you are either XX = female or XY = male. One of the things that this affects is ratio of muscle to body fat, if you are male you are going to have a higher ratio of muscle to body fat then if you are female with the same DNA (minus the y chromosome of course ) that's just the way it is. Much like in the animal kingdom male animals tend to be flash and colorful, especially with insects and birds, and females tend to be boring looking and large. Human females retain more fat then males because they biologically have the equipment to give birth and their bodys know this regardless of what their brain may think, and their bodies will do whatever they can to retain fat instead of produce muscle if it has the option. Of course there are women that would beat your face in, but if that same woman was a man instead they would have an even higher ratio of muscle/fat. This has a large impact in physical activities such as certain sports which favor muscle ratio and strength versus other things.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think that is a little rude and stupid considering one group uses make up to blend into society and another group uses make up to pretend they are pop culture characters.

Well, the comparison was not perfect, but does that make it rude? If so, I apologize.

 easysauce wrote:
You are missing the point crystal.

Biology is the only evidence for GENDER (which is still the proper term for it, despite some people wanting its definition to change, this is still an acceptable and in use term for sex)

Wait...
Gender is also a different word for sex? Kirya is confused now... How would one use that in a sentence? I would like to have gender with you?

 Da Boss wrote:
Sigvatr, Iron Captain:
Even biological gender is not "binary". You can have people who are XX, people who are XY. That's the "norm" in the vast majority of cases. But it is a fact that you can also have people who are XXX, XXY, XYY and so on. Rare cases, often not "traditional" transexuals, more likely suffering from a variety of genetic complaints due to the extra chromosomes interfering with gene expression.

I didn't know people could have 3 chromosomes! Perhaps I should stay home from school and be on Dakka all day. I learn more here
So... How would a XXX person look like?

XXX
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXXY

Thus, Triple X syndrome most often has only mild effects, or has no unusual effects at all. Symptoms may include tall stature; small head (microcephaly); vertical skinfolds that may cover the inner corners of the eyes (epicanthal folds); speech and language learning disabilities, such as dyslexia; or weak muscle tone.[2] The symptoms vary from person to person, with some women being more affected than others. There are seldom any observable physical anomalies in Triple X females, other than being taller than average.

During puberty, the physical traits of the syndrome become more evident; because these boys do not produce as much testosterone as other boys, they have a less muscular body, less facial and body hair, and broader hips. As teens, XXY males may develop breast tissue[14] and also have weaker bones, and a lower energy level than other males.[5]

XXY
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTriple_X_syndrome

By adulthood, XXY males look similar to males without the condition, although they are often taller. In adults, possible characteristics vary widely and include little to no signs of affectedness, a lanky, youthful build and facial appearance, or a rounded body type with some degree of gynecomastia (increased breast tissue).[15] Gynecomastia is present to some extent in about a third of affected individuals, a slightly higher percentage than in the XY population. About 10% of XXY males have gynecomastia noticeable enough that they may choose to have cosmetic surgery.[4]

 daedalus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
How do you all get around the hermaphrodite issue? Just sayin....

I ont see why that is an issue... they are hermaphrodites, we have a term for that psyical reality when someone has both.

there is no "social definition" of hermaphrodite roles, and any given are inherently flawed for the reasons I mentioned,

there is however, a physical definition that is universal.


gender =/= gender identity they are not equivelent.


the words that would actually be more interchangable would be identity = gender identy (or GI is part of an overal identity)

basically, no one gives two cheerios over what you identify as,

people only care once that person starts to assert that their "identity" overides psyical realities.

IE when a man, who identifies as something not a man, wants to compete with women, who identify as woman, in the olympics and claim its not a psycical advantage.

That's compelling to me. In most venues, we don't expect women to be able to physically compete with men. Is that archaic, or is it a valid segregation? Should someone with a male sex be able to compete against women because ((s)he?) feels like ((s)he?) should be a woman?

well it is allowed in the LPGA (womans golf for the non golfers) Bobbi Lancaster

the olympics are a bad example as all the olympians tend to be mutants anyways.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/18/science/la-sci-sn-is-gene-doping-coming-to-the-olympics-20120718

They write that “almost every male Olympic sprinter and power athlete ever tested carries the 577R allele” — a version of a gene that enhances performance

So we should have a mutant olympics and a normal olympics Because if you don't have that gene, you can't compete with those that do.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You are missing the point crystal.

Biology is the only evidence for GENDER (which is still the proper term for it, despite some people wanting its definition to change, this is still an acceptable and in use term for sex)

Wait...
Gender is also a different word for sex? Kirya is confused now... How would one use that in a sentence? I would like to have gender with you?

Gender is not a verb/adverb, as your example of the use of the word would suggest (in your example, sex is the correct term to use, because sex can be a verb/adverb).

Gender is more like "that dog over there is of the male gender" I personally still see the use of the word gender used to denote what bits a person/thing has more predominately in the study of "lesser" animals than humans, as this subtext of "gender doesn't always mean sex or what bits a thing has" seems to be a purely human construct.

 d-usa wrote:
Part of the problem is that gender doesn't always match up with sex...

Sounds like you're right on the money: Dr. Money.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Part of the problem is that gender doesn't always match up with sex...

Sounds like you're right on the money: Dr. Money.

That makes me every kind of sad, and makes me hate every kind of people.

I'm completely unsure of how to reconcile the hatred that I feel outside of building a cabin in the middle of nowhere and refusing to tolerate literally anyone, no matter how similar or different they might be to me. I am fairly sure that you've either suggested a link to hyperbole, or a link to genuine madness wrought from truth. And I can't tell which it is.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

So... How would a XXX person look like?

like any other woman, except infertile. I have had the pleasure of dating a girl who was xxx, you would never know if she didnt tell you.


Regardless of the terms used, whatever the terms for it, there are two things people seem to be having difficulty separating:

There are the physical properties that are measurable and definite, genes chromosomes and so on, we have 0 choice in these, and they are defined from birth.


Then there are the social constructs like gender identity, preferring to be called mr mrs, jon or jane, wearing dresses vs pants, and so on that we relate to "gender" but only through mutable, ever changing, social means. One persons feminine social convention is another masculine, so when someone chooses to change their name from jon to jane and wear dresses instead of pants, its not actually going from "male to female" its going from one socially constructed preconception of how a male acts, to a preconception of how a female acts.

Some might argue that surgery and drugs alter the physical traits into something else, but that is only changing your "physical" sex in the manner that implanting whiskers and furry ears would "make" you a cat.

But to argue that these procedures make someone a "real" man or woman, is to say that every trans person PRIOR to these surgeries is less of a man/woman that they identify to be.

In fact trans identifying peoples identities are still JUST as valid without that treatment.

Consider the source, but still...

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-21-anti-trans-trolling-spree-forces-wikipedia-to-ban-u-s-house-staffers-for-third-time#1

Edit: stupid mobile links...

How Have I missed this thread. I feel that I should at lest poke my nose in as one of the few TG/TS members.

The best way to know some thing about us is to ask one of us, most will answer your questiond as honistly as we can, but make sure you phrase it in a manor that is not offencive or condersending

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Part of the problem is that gender doesn't always match up with sex...

Sounds like you're right on the money: Dr. Money.

Money was absolutely awful as both a 'doctor' and a person. The things he did were nothing short of disgusting, even moreso when you consider that it's fairly obvious just how wrong he was.

 Fafnir wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Part of the problem is that gender doesn't always match up with sex...

Sounds like you're right on the money: Dr. Money.

Money was absolutely awful as both a 'doctor' and a person. The things he did were nothing short of disgusting, even moreso when you consider that it's fairly obvious just how wrong he was.

Yor right, from every thing that I have read and heard he was a nasty bit of work, a waist of fleash and bone.

 Ribon Fox wrote:
How Have I missed this thread. I feel that I should at lest poke my nose in as one of the few TG/TS members.

The best way to know some thing about us is to ask one of us, most will answer your questiond as honistly as we can, but make sure you phrase it in a manor that is not offencive or condersending

Okay. You're a guy who dresses as a woman, right? Do you feel like you were actually supposed to be a woman? In what ways does that feeling express itself?

 daedalus wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:
How Have I missed this thread. I feel that I should at lest poke my nose in as one of the few TG/TS members.

The best way to know some thing about us is to ask one of us, most will answer your questiond as honistly as we can, but make sure you phrase it in a manor that is not offencive or condersending

Okay. You're a guy who dresses as a woman, right? Do you feel like you were actually supposed to be a woman? In what ways does that feeling express itself?

I'm gender fluid for starters, not "a guy who dresses as a woman, right?"; but i'll let that slide due to ignorance of the subject and how to address people politely.

1; Do you feel like you were actually supposed to be a woman?
Most of the time (about 65%) yes, I feel I was born in the wrong body, other times I just worry about paying me rent (about 25%). Would turn down the horrmone treatment? No, I've been there and it does make you wonderfuly centered, most of the internal conflict is gone. Now you could say thats just the results of the chemicals on the brain and you would be right but it is a change that you can not only notice but feel. Would I go under the knife? Noooooooope, I would get to the state that is known as Pre-opp and stay at that level. "Why not go all the way if you have come this far?" I here you say. Well its just me and my messed up head and hearing way to many horror storys about what has happened to so many post-opp girls :(

2: In what ways does that feeling express itself?
You'll find quit afew of us suffer from depression from an early age, for me it was at aged 10 but some get it later. Cupple that with abusive teen years, homelessness, some addiction problems and finaly ending it by taking a steap off the edge of oblivion.
Fortunetly I was rushed to hospital and I lived to tell the tail but quite afew don't. But to ask how does it express itself, is hard to answer but try this:

...Think of a large, flat, black surface of liquid, its viscosaty is like that of treacle, your in the middle of it, nothing is with in sight of you and there is nothing to hold on to. If you struggel the liquid pulls you down but not a ripple is made on the glass like surface. If you painc the liquid will pull you under and then you need help to get back to the surface, if you don't get help you'll keep sinking untill you run out of air and drown on your own daemonds...

Thats the sort of feelings I get every day about who and what I am, I'm open about my self, and if need be I can defend my self via words or with a fist (I an't built for protracted combat ). Sure I get crappy days where all I want to do is just stay under the covers of my bed, cry and eat Ice cream but the rent has to be paied. Other days I'm bounching of the walls super pumped, ready to take on the world and all it can throw at me.

Right now its a case of "Where's the coffee"

 Ribon Fox wrote:
Would turn down the horrmone treatment? No, I've been there and it does make you wonderfuly centered, most of the internal conflict is gone. Now you could say thats just the results of the chemicals on the brain and you would be right but it is a change that you can not only notice but feel.

Considering that pretty much everything going on in the brain is "just the results of chemicals," I'd say that the importance of such a change can't be overstated.

After all, Robin Williams only died because of some messed up chemicals in his brain, right? The circumstances may be different, but the pain suffered, and the results, are tragically often very similar.

 Ribon Fox wrote:

I'm gender fluid for starters, not "a guy who dresses as a woman, right?"; but i'll let that slide due to ignorance of the subject and how to address people politely.

The fact that this is offensive is curious to me. At some point, you need to be able to explain the situation in common terms, defining the term you identify yourself as with words. I mean, when you're speaking to an audience, with the intent of education, you have to speak to them in ways they understand it, right? I see your picture, and I've read your posts, and I know the definition of situation, but i still don't have an actual simple definition of the... what do I even call it, generically? I don't think I can use "condition", because that's bound to raise ire. I genuinely feel like my words are being held hostage here. That might be a source of some of the hostilities.

1; Do you feel like you were actually supposed to be a woman?
Most of the time (about 65%) yes, I feel I was born in the wrong body, other times I just worry about paying me rent (about 25%). Would turn down the horrmone treatment? No, I've been there and it does make you wonderfuly centered, most of the internal conflict is gone. Now you could say thats just the results of the chemicals on the brain and you would be right but it is a change that you can not only notice but feel. Would I go under the knife? Noooooooope, I would get to the state that is known as Pre-opp and stay at that level. "Why not go all the way if you have come this far?" I here you say. Well its just me and my messed up head and hearing way to many horror storys about what has happened to so many post-opp girls :(

I... wasn't going to say that. I mean really, everyone is pretty fethed up in a lot of ways. Do you continue the hormone treatment?

2: In what ways does that feeling express itself?
You'll find quit afew of us suffer from depression from an early age, for me it was at aged 10 but some get it later. Cupple that with abusive teen years, homelessness, some addiction problems and finaly ending it by taking a steap off the edge of oblivion.
Fortunetly I was rushed to hospital and I lived to tell the tail but quite afew don't. But to ask how does it express itself, is hard to answer but try this:

...Think of a large, flat, black surface of liquid, its viscosaty is like that of treacle, your in the middle of it, nothing is with in sight of you and there is nothing to hold on to. If you struggel the liquid pulls you down but not a ripple is made on the glass like surface. If you painc the liquid will pull you under and then you need help to get back to the surface, if you don't get help you'll keep sinking untill you run out of air and drown on your own daemonds...

That sounds like an explanation of depression.

Thats the sort of feelings I get every day about who and what I am, I'm open about my self, and if need be I can defend my self via words or with a fist (I an't built for protracted combat ). Sure I get crappy days where all I want to do is just stay under the covers of my bed, cry and eat Ice cream but the rent has to be paied. Other days I'm bounching of the walls super pumped, ready to take on the world and all it can throw at me.

Right now its a case of "Where's the coffee"

That also sounds like depression.

I have always known that I was a boy/man. I have no desire to be a woman and most of my activities are generally classed as male. I would have no comprehension of what it feels like to be tapped in the wrong body, although I can't imagine it is very nice at all.

However I am also a very cynical person who believes that you can only make do with what you have been given. So that also affacts my viewpoint.

 daedalus wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:

I'm gender fluid for starters, not "a guy who dresses as a woman, right?"; but i'll let that slide due to ignorance of the subject and how to address people politely.

The fact that this is offensive is curious to me. At some point, you need to be able to explain the situation in common terms, defining the term you identify yourself as with words. I mean, when you're speaking to an audience, with the intent of education, you have to speak to them in ways they understand it, right? I see your picture, and I've read your posts, and I know the definition of situation, but i still don't have an actual simple definition of the... what do I even call it, generically? I don't think I can use "condition", because that's bound to raise ire. I genuinely feel like my words are being held hostage here. That might be a source of some of the hostilities.

I'll put this here, to sort of show the difference....

The former (possibly current, I don't know really) mayor of my grandparents' town also owns the local movie theater... it's a small, one screen joint with a huge screen and all that. Anyhow, he's known around town for his wearing of women's clothing, having long painted nails, long "woman-like" hair etc. Well, one of the local newspapers went out to interview him, and the subject of his "crossdressing" came up. And he basically said that he did it because it brought more attention to him/his theater, and the vast majority of it was good. He also joked that many times, while with his wife people with rib him abit and suggest that his nails were done better than his wife's, etc.


Basically, I think there's a huge difference between what Ribon does, and what Stu, the owner of a theater does. There seems to be a genuine feeling of womanhood in one case, and a bit of "extra publicity" in the other.

 daedalus wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:

I'm gender fluid for starters, not "a guy who dresses as a woman, right?"; but i'll let that slide due to ignorance of the subject and how to address people politely.

The fact that this is offensive is curious to me. At some point, you need to be able to explain the situation in common terms, defining the term you identify yourself as with words. I mean, when you're speaking to an audience, with the intent of education, you have to speak to them in ways they understand it, right? I see your picture, and I've read your posts, and I know the definition of situation, but i still don't have an actual simple definition of the... what do I even call it, generically? I don't think I can use "condition", because that's bound to raise ire. I genuinely feel like my words are being held hostage here. That might be a source of some of the hostilities.

1; Do you feel like you were actually supposed to be a woman?
Most of the time (about 65%) yes, I feel I was born in the wrong body, other times I just worry about paying me rent (about 25%). Would turn down the horrmone treatment? No, I've been there and it does make you wonderfuly centered, most of the internal conflict is gone. Now you could say thats just the results of the chemicals on the brain and you would be right but it is a change that you can not only notice but feel. Would I go under the knife? Noooooooope, I would get to the state that is known as Pre-opp and stay at that level. "Why not go all the way if you have come this far?" I here you say. Well its just me and my messed up head and hearing way to many horror storys about what has happened to so many post-opp girls :(

I... wasn't going to say that. I mean really, everyone is pretty fethed up in a lot of ways. Do you continue the hormone treatment?

2: In what ways does that feeling express itself?
You'll find quit afew of us suffer from depression from an early age, for me it was at aged 10 but some get it later. Cupple that with abusive teen years, homelessness, some addiction problems and finaly ending it by taking a steap off the edge of oblivion.
Fortunetly I was rushed to hospital and I lived to tell the tail but quite afew don't. But to ask how does it express itself, is hard to answer but try this:

...Think of a large, flat, black surface of liquid, its viscosaty is like that of treacle, your in the middle of it, nothing is with in sight of you and there is nothing to hold on to. If you struggel the liquid pulls you down but not a ripple is made on the glass like surface. If you painc the liquid will pull you under and then you need help to get back to the surface, if you don't get help you'll keep sinking untill you run out of air and drown on your own daemonds...

That sounds like an explanation of depression.

Thats the sort of feelings I get every day about who and what I am, I'm open about my self, and if need be I can defend my self via words or with a fist (I an't built for protracted combat ). Sure I get crappy days where all I want to do is just stay under the covers of my bed, cry and eat Ice cream but the rent has to be paid. Other days I'm bouncing of the walls super pumped, ready to take on the world and all it can throw at me.

Right now its a case of "Where's the coffee"

That also sounds like depression.

I meant no offence its just plan that you haven't interacted with many of the trans folk before, I know some that would get relay snarly with you just for using male adjective at them, I am far more torlarent Its the old duck thing, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then the chances are its a horse

I didn't keep it up as the boy friend at the time was the one who got me the moans, when he put me in hospital the moans kind'a stopped with the restraining order I put on him, I do miss the feeling of being at one, and the softer skin it gives you. Now that I'm in a new city I need to find a new doctor that will be understanding to me (yes even in the Medical system you get asshats).

Depression is unfortunately a very good way to describe the feelings we get nigh on most of the time. The feeling of being useless, lonely and hating what you see in the mirror are some times part'n part of what makes some of us tick.

I've noticed some of the same posters from my thread in my sig in here (EDIT: sorry I mean my thread about the link in my sig) (EDIT 2: link to the thread mentioned in earlier edit has been removed from my sig)...with some of the same words (rainbow unicorns...again!? but at least no one has compared transfolk to "kin"folk yet).

A few points, to the posters who say no one gives a crap what you indentify as...the sad thing is many people do, with sometimes violent results.

Also, I never get why you care though, like as has been stated just because a person has a dingdong but feels he is a woman isnt gonna hurt anyone, so why should people care.

Ribon Fox, Good luck with the doctor and all that!

This has been another useless post by me