Let's try it this way:

A little boy is born without a right leg. The Doctors build him a prosthetic one that allows him to walk.

Some will scoff and snarl and say "that's not a real leg - who does that kid think he's fooling? He's a one legged kid and that's all he will ever be!"

They might even wait till no one's looking and beat the crap out of the kid in an alleyway. After all, that kind of emotion has to express itself eventually.

There's an old expression: You can judge someone by their enemies.

If we judge Transgendered people by their enemies, they surely come out as angels.

I don't think it's quite like that Stacy.
Not quite... But partially yes.

It comes down to respecting people for what they are and not what they "should" be. Whether that's an African man, A gay person, TG, amputee, an Iranian, Muslim, some poor person with AIDS... It comes down to the same things in the end.

I guess in a clearly biological sense the transsexual still has the Y chromosome. So whether or not they're a male or female falls down to whose definition you're using.

i just have problems with labels. a man shouldn't label themselves a woman because the true meaning of a woman is genetically a woman. If a person underwent surgery to try to appear to be the opposite sex, a person should state that they are a transgender.

a person can change many things physically and mentally, but you can never change what you were born with. genetically. no matter how much hormones or surgery you do.

xx or xy still exists inside that person.

Pure genetics may not be the only indicator of gender. That's the problem and part of the confusion about gender identity. There is also hormone balance among other things (not enviornment though, that's pretty much been disproven. Certain gender different behaviors always exhibit themselves regardless of enviornment, but not always in the gender they're traditionally expected!)

It's not so simple. Maybe Kirk or Picard will know, but in the 21st Century they're still working on it.

StaceyMontgomery
I once met a guy who told me that no one born in another country can ever really be an American. What about people who become Americans, people who immigrate, i asked him.

By his definition I'd be the among the most American since my ancestors got here in 1610 and definitely more American than your friend probably is unless he is a Native American. When you cut off the immigration thing? You have to immigrate before when? 1492? (Native Americans) 1776? 1787?

Again this segues into gender identity. What is the final definition? Genetics may not be the final determining factor. That's what they're still working on.

Then there is which sexual preferences are within the norms of human behavior and which ones are signs of mental imbalance/illness. Homosexuality was accepted only recently as not being an illness by mental health professionals . Which of the growing varieties of sexual preference are a sign of mental illness/imbalance and which are healthy?

ozoneocean
You're TG? :)

Heh. Personally, I held those strict views about sex and gender when I was younger. But these days I'm more inclined to accept people as they present themselves or how they feel they want to be. it's hard to hold to silly strict views when you mix with those sorts of people when you're studying art, you know?

It's all very well to say "if you were born with a dick you're A, born with a vag you're B and that's how it is!" but when you actually meet and know that's people from day to day on life that seems just plain wrong a thing to do... Those are living, breathing people and who the F**k are YOU to tell them what they are?

Word.

The arrogance of the xy chromosome argument completely astounds me. I suppose we should force people with harelips to wear a sign saying, i know i look normal but i was born with a harelip.

Perhaps we should also force conjoined siamese twins to wear an identifying badge so as not to confuse them from normal people. After all, who do they think they are kidding with their non genetic seperation, their conjoinedness is in their DNA afterall, they should just accept it.

Perhaps some of you who so coldly dismiss a person's desire to regain a sense of self by correcting nature's error in gender assignment as a simple math equation(x=f, y=m) might feel differently if you saw the struggle of a loved one day after day to endure the rejection and judgement of others in their quest for gender identity.

subcultured
I just have problems with labels. a man shouldn't label themselves a woman because the true meaning of a woman is genetically a woman. If a person underwent surgery to try to appear to be the opposite sex, a person should state that they are a transgender.

a person can change many things physically and mentally, but you can never change what you were born with. genetically. no matter how much hormones or surgery you do.

xx or xy still exists inside that person.

Hmm. You say that the "true meaning" of woman is a genetic meaning, and you made the same claim about "redheadedness" earlier. So far, you have not backed that claim up. Do you really do a genetics test before deciding whether or not to use the term "redhead?" That does not seem likely.

You seem to be assuming that YOU know who is "xx" and "xy" without having to actually run the tests. I think you are wrong. How many times have you tested your theory by actually doing the tests? You may be in for some surprises.

But I understand your real point - Transgendered people should be forced to label themselves clearly. Certainly, that would make life easier for people who wish to refuse them housing, jobs, medical care, and so on. After all, Transgendered people have all the best enemies.

Actually, I agree with you that no Surgeon can make someone a man or a woman. I have found that fundamental truths like that are found in people's hearts and souls, not their genitals or their DNA.

StaceyMontgomery
Actually, I agree with you that no Surgeon can make someone a man or a woman. I have found that fundamental truths like that are found in people's hearts and souls, not their genitals or their DNA.

Amen sister.

subcultured
xx or xy still exists inside that person.

My 23rd "pair" of chromosomes (the ones that determine your sex) is indicated as "XXY". So, there your theory is dismissed because it isn't rooted in truth. Not everybody has this magically binary thing that makes them one or the other. That's society talking, not science.

((And, yes, I joined JUST to say that.))

FaerieFyre
((And, yes, I joined JUST to say that.))

You joined three months late.

Perhaps we should also force conjoined siamese twins to wear an identifying badge so as not to confuse them from normal people. After all, who do they think they are kidding with their non genetic seperation, their conjoinedness is in their DNA afterall, they should just accept it.

While I agree with everything else you say, I just wanted to point out that most conjoined twins are the result of a developmental anomaly and have not been linked to genetics. I know it's a little off topic, it just bugged me.

More on topic, though, I think people are what they make of themselves, not necessarily what they were born as. If a person decides they need surgery to better represent who or what they are, then more power to them. It is a bit ridiculous to judge a person solely on their God-given equipment or their genetics, when society doesn't do the same. We judge people by the way they act or the things they do, not by what's between their legs. We judge a more aggressive woman as being less than a woman or a more passive man as being less than a man. How can we claim someone who actively seeks to have the physical form, mindset, and personality of the opposite gender is less of a man or woman than the person who is born into it and doesn't act the role?

Sex/gender just isn't binary. There is such a thing as being intersexed, i.e., being born with genitalia that DOESN'T match your DNA, or with ambiguous genitalia.

Someone with XY chromosomes can be born with a vagina. It happens all the time, and unless the go to the hospital for some other reason, it often goes undetected, because it doesn't affect the person's life (besides them being sterile).

It seems that this desire to strictly label everyone as "male" and "female" stems from a fear of accidentally dating a transexual. You find a nice girl, date for some time, even go all the way, and find out later that this nice girl once had balls. A lot of people aren't secure enough in their sexuality to handle that.

megan_rose
Sex/gender just isn't binary. There is such a thing as being intersexed, i.e., being born with genitalia that DOESN'T match your DNA, or with ambiguous genitalia.


It seems that this desire to strictly label everyone as "male" and "female" stems from a fear of accidentally dating a transexual. You find a nice girl, date for some time, even go all the way, and find out later that this nice girl once had balls. A lot of people aren't secure enough in their sexuality to handle that.

Honestly I really think that sex and gender is binary. XY is a genetic mle, XX is a genetic female. The fact that the body sometimes screws up and gives them the wrong genitals does not disprove the rule, it just means that their bodies screwed up. And even when that happens, the XY "female" is prevented from alot of naturally feminine functions because of the XY.



If I learned I was dating a transsexual, I don't know exactly how I would react. I wouldn't get violent, but I would still be angry. And not because I'm insecure about my sexuality. That is a huge violation of trust. Some people might find that silly, that if I'm dating a woman I expect that she's really a natural woman. Maybe I want to marry her and start a family. But then they decide that they need to tell you their secret after a period of time. That's a huge shocker, and it's incredibly unfair if you say I can't get mad or be shocked at that revelation.

Technically though there's no real safe time for them to tell you. But honestly, I'd rather be told BEFORE anything goes to the next level. I've known someone who was transgender before. This guy is not a representative of the transgender community. He had alot more problems than just thinking he was a woman. He frequently talked about shooting out public places or suicide, and would show off guns and armor to different people. He was getting therapy though, so I didn't bother getting too freaked about his gun obsessions.

But he would sometimes link me to pages of bras or something like that, and it almost seemed like he was disappointed when I didn't show a stronger reaction than what I did. I usually said something like "oh I guess that's cool," but I could swear he expected me to get mad (he also linked me to some transgender comic, which I read all the way through, and thought it was unfair that the main character was still hitting on guys while he was STILL a guy himself).

Over time I became less sympathetic for him, and when I first met him I held the same belief that you should give these people what they think they need n protect them from wrong-doers. But as I learned more about him I saw that he had real problems that would not be fixed by surgery. That is a drastic step to try and help these people too. But every time I tried to mention other alternatives (or the fact that he was not really a woman in a man's body), no matter how vaguely or politely I'd say it, he would flip out, stop talking to me, and his friends would attack me with ridiculous claims. That isn't right.

I don't hold the belief that these people actually are the wrong gender. I think the problem is entirely psychological. And I think that there is another solution INSTEAD of a vastly disfiguring surgery. But I don't feel like enough people are willing to admit that, or even try to find these alternate solutions. I look at these people like alcoholics. They thrive on the sympathy and the drama brought on by their 'condition.' And we give them what they want and protect them from any kind of criticism that we can. I did that for a while too. But then after learning more about these people and interacting with him and his friends, I decided that this behavior is doing nothing more than giving an alcoholic a stiff drink.

There are people with horrible conditions. For example, people with multiple personalities. I've noticed that people rarely consider the other personalities as real. They know that these are just dysfunctional bits of the person's mind. They never question that if they cure him of his condition, they might be murdering a potentially intelligent being. They think this way because they know of the causes, and they have much better treatments. They don't indulge the other personalities.

But with transgenders, we do. We give them what they want on the basis that there's nothing better to give them. But for everyone else, we let them suffer. If you have arm pain, but they don't know what you did, they'll give you painkillers, but they won't replace your arm.

I feel that when we give these people the surgeries they want, we aren't curing anything. The root cause of the problem is still there, you've only given it what it wants. And yes, I definitely view this as some kind of condition that can be cured. I have sympathy for anyone who feels like they are the wrong gender, I just don't want to cut them apart to make them feel better.


Alot of people tend to get pretty mad when I say this. That's fine, they have that right. But I still have the right to say that they aren't actually X gender in Y body. I have the right to say the sky is purple. While we know the latter isn't true and that I'm wrong for saying it, we don't know about the former.

That all really seems shallow, to me. It also reminds me quite a bit of the way gays were treated not too long ago with people committing them to asylums to get them "treated for their condition".

Maybe I want to marry her and start a family.

You do realize this is what the whole dating thing is about, right? That's where you learn more about your partner. And quite frankly how is the situation all that different from being with a natural born girl who is infertile? It's not like she's just going to bring that up on a first date and it's kind of weird to be talking about kids when you've just met someone. Would that be a betrayal of your trust as well, or would you be willing to work around that?

Good points Isukun.

Add to that the fact that sex really is more than just XY, XX, XXX, XXY, or any other combination that tends to pop-up, simply because there are more genes and hormones that have a role in shaping gender: that's the physical characterises, I'm not even touching on the mental ones here.

And interestingly I was listening to a medical programme on the radio this morning where they were discussing new findings that show transgenderisim has a basis directly in genetics. The lead researcher was quite interesting to listen to. Apparently early findings show that the length of a specific gene combination determines the levels of adnrogenes that the developing body is exposed to. That along with other factors helps determine gender and sexuality. :)
--------------------------------------

Gender stereotypes are interesting though... They're more cultural and psychological than physical: Stupid things like weak, non physically able females just interested in appearance and pretty things; strong stupid males mainly interested in sports, fighting, cars etc...
But people mistake those for genetic differences lol!

Fair enough, differences do have a genetic basis, but people go WAY too far. Culture is the primary determining factor for things that only exist because they are part of culture.

isukun
That all really seems shallow, to me. It also reminds me quite a bit of the way gays were treated not too long ago with people committing them to asylums to get them "treated for their condition".


You do realize this is what the whole dating thing is about, right? That's where you learn more about your partner. And quite frankly how is the situation all that different from being with a natural born girl who is infertile? It's not like she's just going to bring that up on a first date and it's kind of weird to be talking about kids when you've just met someone. Would that be a betrayal of your trust as well, or would you be willing to work around that?

I don't think we were giving gays extensive surgeries for their 'condition.' But yeah we did mean things back then to all sorts of people, we know better now, and I really wish people would stop using that sort of thing as an excuse or comparison for behavior today.


Man I don't think that you'd say something like "I used to be a man" on the first date. But they DO find people who are accepting of that, and that's wonderful. Really, it is. But I shouldn't have to be that person. Because I do see it as a violation of trust. The other people might too for a little while, but they get over it. And while I might be able to establish friendship with these people, I won't want anything further than that.

And if the real woman is infertile, there are still other options you can try. If she has eggs you can have them artificially inseminated, or if nothing works you can adopt. You can do that with a transgendered person too, but I wouldn't.


And why is it shallow to think like this? How would you react if you were faced with that scenario? And be realistic, don't say "Well I'd respect her for her choices blah blah blah." It's fine for you to be totally shocked by something like that, and even angry. It's only bad if you start hating the people. There's nothing wrong with a neutral opinion.

ozoneocean
Gender stereotypes are interesting though... They're more cultural and psychological than physical: Stupid things like weak, non physically able females just interested in appearance and pretty things; strong stupid males mainly interested in sports, fighting, cars etc...
But people mistake those for genetic differences lol!

I keep wondering about stuff like that. In college I had one female teacher who was furious about society filing women into gender roles. She said that hospitals started by putting a pink bow on the girls, and the sexism continued from there. She was an awful art teacher, because I heard more about this kind of stuff than art. But if her point was to get me to question how much of a gender's roles were predetermined, then I guess it worked. Now and then I've heard people say that it's wrong and sexist to market baby dolls (or videogames featuring baby-tending as a goal) to girls because it unfairly influences them into the gender role of motherhood.

Here's the thing, though. One of my coworkers has a very little daughter. He swears that he and his wife have never pushed her toward the feminine end of the scale. They haven't bought her dolls (just Fisher-Price type toys). And yet, when she gets into her dad's action figures, she bundles them up like babies and pampers them... Even the ugly monsters.

So, are this little girl's actions conditioned into her somehow, or a genetically ingrained mother's instinct?

Why this might be learned behavior:
- Even without her parents' influence, it may be that she sees women being matronly on TV or in her neighborhood.
- TV commercials with baby dolls always show girls playing with them.
- Her earliest memories are probably of her own mother tending to her needs.

Why this may be genetic maternal instinct:
- Most animal species have children being raised by the mother (with notable exceptions). Animals don't have the media or sexist agendas forcing them into gender roles.
- I've heard in at least a few occasions of mothers who actually notice their maternal instincts "kicking in" as soon as they have their first baby.
- I witnessed my own dog, stricken with infertility, try to raise cats as her puppies. The cats weren't too keen on this, by the way.

I don't see the mothering act to be an instinct so much as it is a biological necessity. Really, the notion of the nurturing mother really is something far more common among mammals than other types of animals. Look at birds, reptiles, fish and other egg-laying species and you'll more often see one of two possibilities. One is that the parents equally partake in the nurturing process, as is often the case with birds where the male will sit on the eggs, feed the children, and chase off predators just like the female, or they simply abandon the children to their fate, like many fish and reptiles. In fact, in the animal kingdom, those two possibilities pop up more than that of the nurturing mother.

But with mammals, there is more of a need for the mother specifically to nurture her young. After all, she is the sole source of food early on in life, she is typically weakened from the extended pregnancy and birthing process, and in many cases, the male simply doesn't stick around. Animals, just like people, have their own social customs and defined roles that they learn as they grow up. In fact, there are cases where some species of animal will abandon their own young if they are not raised properly (humans being one of them).

we know better now, and I really wish people would stop using that sort of thing as an excuse or comparison for behavior today.

I don't see that as the case. People are still very closed minded and afraid of things they don't understand or which challenge their puritan beliefs. I don't see this as any different. People make mistakes, yes, but the key is to learn from those mistakes, not just ignore them and move on to the next target.

But I shouldn't have to be that person. Because I do see it as a violation of trust.

I don't see it as a violation of trust if they are being honest about it. It's only a violation of trust if they lie about it.

How would you react if you were faced with that scenario?

If the person were so convincing that I thought her a natural born woman and we had been going out for a while, if she sprung that sort of revelation on me, I'd probably be a little surprised, but I'd get over it and probably continue the relationship.

Hawk
Here's the thing, though. One of my coworkers has a very little daughter. He swears that he and his wife have never pushed her toward the feminine end of the scale. They haven't bought her dolls (just Fisher-Price type toys). And yet, when she gets into her dad's action figures, she bundles them up like babies and pampers them... Even the ugly monsters.

So, are this little girl's actions conditioned into her somehow, or a genetically ingrained mother's instinct?

There are biological factors that influence gender roles, as I say, but they're only small influences on aspects of these roles that are mainly cultural.

With the example of a young child nurturing dolls, this is clearly imitative behaviour, which is the main way humans learn to do things- from walking to speech, to dressing... And all the rest. The child is female, she imitates what she sees other female children and archetypes (archetypes to her) doing. As for where she sees that behaviour, the question should really be "how could she not?". And because she's female, her parents probably don't feel moved to discourage this behaviour even if they don't encourage it.
- I don't know the people you're talking about or who they treat their child, so that as all logic, reasoning and hypothesis.

I know from a lot of other examples where young children have grown up liking different things, depending on what was a bigger influence on them. My sister for example didn't start liking dolls and feminine things until she was about 6 or 7 or so. Before that her favourite things in the world were her bunny rabbit (mine was a teddy bear:)), a collection of different sized racing car toys, and a set of Lego. And top of those were the racing cars. She was obsessed with them... F1, LeMans, and Indi car toys. She also liked dump trucks. lol!

There's nothing wrong with gender stereotypes, but there is something wrong with thinking that too much of it is predetermined by something we have very little controll over.

isukun
I don't see it as a violation of trust if they are being honest about it. It's only a violation of trust if they lie about it.

Man unless that confession is the first thing that comes out of their mouth when you see them then they're 'telling' you a lie of omission.

Good points, Isukun and Ozoneocean. Thanks for the interesting input on that.

Where does it end with you, Ridley? You're giving a very poor example of an obviously psychologically troubled person and applying that to the whole of transsexuals. That's not only making a generalization, that's profiling. If you had a friend that was African-American and a gang member, would that be your overall assumption of African-American culture?

Betrayal of trust, even? What if the girl you're dating isn't just infertile, she's a felon. Sure, she did some stupid things and got locked up in the juvenile system for a while. Then, she turned 18 and all her records were expunged. If she doesn't tell you she's a felon, is that a betrayal of trust? I mean, what's the difference?

From your responses, one can make a simple assumption: You're not only ignorant, you're scared out of your mind. You're afraid of what you don't (and can never truly) understand.

FaerieFyre
From your responses, one can make a simple assumption: You're not only ignorant, you're scared out of your mind. You're afraid of what you don't (and can never truly) understand.

If he overcomes his ignorance he can and will understand. It ain't easy.

It is not as easy as some may think to develop a responsible and secure sexual identity. A lot of people have hang-ups, fears, ignorance etc. I know who I am and I wish everyone the good fortune I've had in defining their sexuality. Once you're secure in your own skin with who you are sexually; it becomes so much easier to accept and understand others.

For every cultural influence on sexual identity there may be and probably is brain hardwiring behind it. We might be hardwired to have our culture be a certain way and that way could go back 40,000 years.

As far as the XX, XY etc. thing, well it's supposedly designed to work a certain way,(male+female=offspring) but genetics being imperfect and selection among the genes being the way lifeforms evolve there is bound to be variation. There is too much we don't know. It may be part of genetic/sexual selection. Lots more to research and it keeps life interesting.

KingRidley

isukun
I don't see it as a violation of trust if they are being honest about it. It's only a violation of trust if they lie about it.

Man unless that confession is the first thing that comes out of their mouth when you see them then they're 'telling' you a lie of omission.

HAHAHA. I'm sorry, but I find that to be funny. according to that logic, that means that EVERYONE, even straights, lies by omission.

for example.... say some guy has a thing for black women only. But he doesn't blurt it out to every person he meets... mainly because it's none of their business whenever he has a thing for black women or not. So to non-black women who were into him even though he doesn't return the same attention, that might be a "lie by omission"?

In the same vein, not every gay person would want to blurt out "I'm gay!!!" to every person they meet... because to be quite frank.. what they do in the bedroom is none of the public's business. They'd only tell that information to their friends, family, and any other people who they trusted. and rightly so.

It's not a lie by omission... but rather an pravticy issue. After all... believe it or not, but there are actually gays out there who isn't into that exbonistic thing where they go out to gay parades or any of that stuff. They actually prefer to lead a quiet life, to be left alone, etc. They would only tell people who they considered to be their friends, etc.

it seems to be only the homophobes who has an issue with that; mainly because they're so vain that they think that every gay man would want to jump them sexually or think perverted thoughts about that homophobe if they were ever to become friends/etc with that homophobe.

I think the whole transsexual thing is a little different from that, Aurora. Certainly a person doesn't have an obligation to tell everyone they meet that they're a transsexual. But to start dating somebody and delay giving them the news seems a bit dishonest to me. When is the right time to spring the news? I don't know. But to me, sex changes seem pretty high on the list of things to be open and honest about in a relationship.

I hate it when people are not honest about being bigoted about transexuals. I mean, there are people out there in the dating pool RIGHT NOW who really hate, fear, and demonize transexuals. No one knows why - perhaps they are misguided. Maybe they are bad people. Who knows? The point is, they have to be honest.

Certainly a person doesn't have an obligation to tell everyone they meet that they're a bigot. But to start dating somebody and delay giving them the news seems a bit dishonest to me. When is the right time to spring the news? I don't know. But to me, bigotry and intolerance seem pretty high on the list of things to be open and honest about in a relationship.

Wait, what? I'm a bit confused, Stacey. Are you telling me I'm an intolerant bigot? If so, I just want to know why it's intolerant to want to know the original gender of your potential spouse.

I didn't say anyone here was a bigot. I thought we were listing the things that you have to disclose early on when dating. You listed one thing, I listed another.

Mine seems especially important though, don't you think? Who would want to date a bigot? Not me! I bet you wouldn't either!

Well, put that way, yeah.... I wouldn't want to date a bigot either. Unless they were a bigot toward Arby's, like I am.

Well there you go then.

What about people who don't have easily detected ethnic heritages? I know several people who tend to "pass" as different ethnic types because something about them - their last name, skin tone, accent, whatever - does not match what's expected!

You could easily date people like that many times without ever realizing their true origin!

Obviously, ethnic type has been one of the main ways people have been categorized by society for many thousands of years - since the dawn of mankind, really. We wouldn't want to mess with that! To start dating somebody and delay giving them the news seems a bit dishonest to me.

Why, i bet we could do something with colored armbands or something!


Here's another one - i just read a poll that determined that in the US, Atheists are among the least trusted people in the population. Atheism is a big big deal to a LOT of people. Do atheists have moral responsibility to "disclose" their lack of religion "early on?" If they don't, are they being dishonest?

I mean, Im an atheist, but I never thought to warn anyone...


This list of "things you must disclose on the first date" is gonna get pretty big, isn't it?