Transgender Miss Universe
Replies
-
To me, there is no such thing as being born a man, or born a woman. "Man" and "woman" are labels for adult humans. We are born human, given a label as "male", "female", "boy", or "girl", and then we grow to be become men, women, or neither one. Jenna was born human, labelled as a "boy"/"male", and grew to become a woman. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing scary about it. It's simply one of the paths that human biology can take.
You either have a Y chromosome or you don't. There *is* such a thing as being either male or female, biologically speaking.
I know I'm probably asking to be flamed, but here goes...
I do not understand the acceptance of "transgender" as being a normal or natural state for humans. Unless you are a hermaphrodite, you are definitively either male or female. If gender roles really are completely societal, then why would *anyone* ever feel the need to change their gender? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to believe that someone who was born with a penis was given the incorrect anatomy by nature.
Please keep in mind this isn't a moral issue for me. I have zero issue with homosexuality which I *do* see as occurring in nature. But are there male chimps who feel they should have been born female? I am not using that example as an attempt to disparage, but a legitimate point of debate.
Sexual preference is a purely biochemical process. But when you have a penis, you have a penis. I can't see how believing you shouldn't have a penis isn't a brain malfunction. What if I were born with an incredible desire to only have two fingers on each hand.... would it be considered normal to want to cut off the rest of my fingers? How would that be any different?
I have tried very hard to pick my words carefully to try and avoid offending anyone. I'm not trying to judge anyone - just raise what I see as a valid concern on the subject.
1. There are cisgender females who are XY, caused by androgen insensitivity syndrome and similar conditions.
2. There are cisgender males who are XX who have de la Chapelle syndrome, and is only a bit less common than Klinefelter.
The "sex" chromosomes are only a tiny piece of a much larger genetic puzzle that forms our physical sex and mental gender.
3. The fact that you don't accept the fact that trans people are natural, despite the evidence that transsexualism is genetic, and also that transsexual brain structure is more biologically similar to the person's mental gender than that of their assigned physical sex [http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.full and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7689007.stm] means only that you are choosing to deny scientific evidence, and your own bias is not a valid argument against the natural existence of trans persons.
4. Gender variance and transsexualism have been observed outside of our own species. There are numerous species that are capable of spontaneous sex changes, and others in which some members outwardly behave similarly to members of the opposite physical sex. There are other species with multiple, distinct, classifiable variations within a single physical sex. Your argument about the possibility that there are no male chimps who are trans is illegitimate.
5. What's between our legs has pretty much nothing to do with what's between our ears. One's physical sex also has little to do, or should have little to do, with what's between the legs given that there are many variables in the physical sex equation than just penis or vagina or XX or XY karyotype. Gender incongruence is not a brain malfunction, but only a different biological path from that seemingly taken by the majority of our species. However, it is just biological diversity. What you or others consider "normal" is completely irrelevant, and that's how it should be. We are all unique. We are all diverse. Being "normal", to me, simply means trying to fit in with a bunch of people who are actively seeking to lessen the importance of their diversity and uniqueness. I am unique, and proud to be unique. I never want to be "normal".0 -
The "sex" chromosomes are only a tiny piece of a much larger genetic puzzle that forms our physical sex and mental gender.
Statement without proof. Please define "mental gender."The fact that you don't accept the fact that trans people are natural, despite the evidence that transsexualism is genetic, and also that transsexual brain structure is more biologically similar to the person's mental gender than that of their assigned physical sex means only that you are choosing to deny scientific evidence, and your own bias is not a valid argument against the natural existence of trans persons.
From the study you posted: "The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder."
Note that depression is thought to be genetic and the result of having low levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. So the fact that transgenders might have imbalances in their brain is not proof that it's a "natural" condition, unless you are prepared to accept that depression is a natural condition that shouldn't be treated. Also note that the study refers to it as a "disorder." I do not believe I am the one showing bias here.Your argument about the possibility that there are no male chimps who are trans is illegitimate.
Another statement without proof. Can you cite any studies of other male primates removing or attempting to remove their own genitals?Gender incongruence is not a brain malfunction, but only a different biological path from that seemingly taken by the majority of our species.
What are you possibly basing this on?
Unsurprisingly, you completely ignored my question about the fingers. If I was born with a very strong urge to amputate four of my fingers, would you view this as simply a "different biological path?"0 -
Oh, and your argument for diversity is just plain insulting. If someone doesn't understand why cutting off your genitals shouldn't be considered a mental disorder that doesn't instantly meant they are against people being "unique" or "diverse."
I took great care in trying to avoid being insulting towards transgender people, but you did not hesitate to insinuate that I was a close-minded bigot. Which one of us is trying harder to be understanding of the viewpoints of others?0 -
The "sex" chromosomes are only a tiny piece of a much larger genetic puzzle that forms our physical sex and mental gender.
Statement without proof. Please define "mental gender."
[/quote]
The fact that there are XY cisgender females born with vaginas, and XX cisgender males born with penises is the proof that the sex chromosomes are only a variable of the equation, and not the entire equation.
The fact that there are XX transsexual men, and XY transsexual women is the proof that gender is separate from physical sex. If physical sex and mental gender were the same things then there would not be a transsexual population. Mental gender is the gender one holds as their own identity. It is not dictated by genitals.The fact that you don't accept the fact that trans people are natural, despite the evidence that transsexualism is genetic, and also that transsexual brain structure is more biologically similar to the person's mental gender than that of their assigned physical sex means only that you are choosing to deny scientific evidence, and your own bias is not a valid argument against the natural existence of trans persons.
From the study you posted: "The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder."
Note that depression is thought to be genetic and the result of having low levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. So the fact that transgenders might have imbalances in their brain is not proof that it's a "natural" condition, unless you are prepared to accept that depression is a natural condition that shouldn't be treated. Also note that the study refers to it as a "disorder." I do not believe I am the one showing bias here.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, are saying that chemical imbalances or structural differences in the brain do not occur naturally?Your argument about the possibility that there are no male chimps who are trans is illegitimate.
Another statement without proof. Can you cite any studies of other male primates removing or attempting to remove their own genitals?
[/quote]
Your argument was simple speculation and is, as I said, illegitimate. The fact that your argument was speculation alone is the proof that it was illegitimate.Gender incongruence is not a brain malfunction, but only a different biological path from that seemingly taken by the majority of our species.
What are you possibly basing this on?
[/quote]
I am basing this on the fact that gender incongruence is a naturally occurring state observed in multiple species. I am also basing this on the fact that the scientific evidence is that gender incongruence is neurobiological, and that it also set before we are born. The actual cause of gender incongruence is not yet known, but the evidence to date supports the idea that it is not a brain "malfunction" in the sense that one is born, and then the brain somehow changes or malfunctions, but rather that the brain develops in this specific way during foetal development, and is directed by genetics.Unsurprisingly, you completely ignored my question about the fingers. If I was born with a very strong urge to amputate four of my fingers, would you view this as simply a "different biological path?"
If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should certainly be allowed to amputate those fingers. No one should be able to claim that you are unnatural for doing so given that your urge was a natural occurrence for you.0 -
Oh, and your argument for diversity is just plain insulting. If someone doesn't understand why cutting off your genitals shouldn't be considered a mental disorder that doesn't instantly meant they are against people being "unique" or "diverse."
I took great care in trying to avoid being insulting towards transgender people, but you did not hesitate to insinuate that I was a close-minded bigot. Which one of us is trying harder to be understanding of the viewpoints of others?
Perhaps you are a close-minded bigot in this regard and that is why you took from my words what you did, but I didn't make such an insinuation. My argument about diversity is based on the fact that we are all unique. There are very few characteristics that every human being on the planet has in common. I am not sure how the diversity of our species could be "plain insulting".
Also, the genitals in GRS are not "cut off", they are rearranged. Most of what is there gets reused, very little gets permanently removed. The APA and WPATH are in agreement that gender incongruence is NOT a mental disorder, and this is part of the reason why the DSM-V will no longer have a section about "Gender Identity Disorder". The DSM-IV and previous DSMs helped to stigmatise the trans* community and perpetuate the idea that they are mentally ill, when that is not the case. Luckily, that's changing now, at least in the scientific and medical community.0 -
If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should certainly be allowed to amputate those fingers. No one should be able to claim that you are unnatural for doing so given that your urge was a natural occurrence for you.
I do not understand this. By your definition, everything is "normal" and we shouldn't treat *any* psychological disorders.0 -
If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should certainly be allowed to amputate those fingers. No one should be able to claim that you are unnatural for doing so given that your urge was a natural occurrence for you.
I do not understand this. By your definition, everything is "normal" and we shouldn't treat *any* psychological disorders.
You obviously have misinterpreted or failed to comprehend what I've said. Please show me where I've said anything that comes close to meaning this.
Edit: After reviewing everything I've said I don't see anywhere where I said that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. lol And I didn't say that "everything is 'normal', either. I said we are all unique, we are all diverse. I said that the only thing that makes someone "normal" is trying to fit in with a bunch of other people who are trying to diminish the importance of their own diversity and uniqueness. None of this can be interpreted as meaning what you've said I said. :laugh:0 -
If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should certainly be allowed to amputate those fingers. No one should be able to claim that you are unnatural for doing so given that your urge was a natural occurrence for you.
I do not understand this. By your definition, everything is "normal" and we shouldn't treat *any* psychological disorders.
You obviously have misinterpreted or failed to comprehend what I've said. Please show me where I've said anything that comes close to meaning this.
It's in the quote that you just requoted: "If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should be certainly allowed to amputate those fingers."
No... no, you shouldn't. If you want to cut off your fingers, something is WRONG with you and you need help.0 -
None of this can be interpreted as meaning what you've said I said. :laugh:
Wanting to cut off your own fingers is most definitely unnatural. I intentionally picked a ridiculous example - the fact that you feel it should be considered "normal" to want to cut off your own fingers..... there's really nowhere to go from there.0 -
If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should certainly be allowed to amputate those fingers. No one should be able to claim that you are unnatural for doing so given that your urge was a natural occurrence for you.
I do not understand this. By your definition, everything is "normal" and we shouldn't treat *any* psychological disorders.
You obviously have misinterpreted or failed to comprehend what I've said. Please show me where I've said anything that comes close to meaning this.
It's in the quote that you just requoted: "If you were born with a very strong urge to amputate four of your fingers it would be a different biological path, and you should be certainly allowed to amputate those fingers."
No... no, you shouldn't. If you want to cut off your fingers, something is WRONG with you and you need help.
OK, I see what's happened. You have your own beliefs mixed up with what I've said. You're the one who must believe that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. Got it.
Now, when I said that you should be able to amputate your fingers, I meant it. Why? I was taking your use of "strong urge" seriously, meaning that having those fingers would be causing you great discomfort and mental distress and agony. You should be able to take the appropriate treatment course to treat that condition. No one should tell you that there is something wrong with you, at least not in the context and emphasis you just used it.0 -
I guess I'll bite on this issue. Some people are predisposed to be pedophiles, too. We would never say they should be able to act on what their "strong urges" are. That would not be an appropriate treatment and there's nothing wrong with telling them something is wrong with them mentally.Now, when I said that you should be able to amputate your fingers, I meant it. Why? I was taking your use of "strong urge" seriously, meaning that having those fingers would be causing you great discomfort and mental distress and agony. You should be able to take the appropriate treatment course to treat that condition. No one should tell you that there is something wrong with you, at least not in the context and emphasis you just used it.0 -
I guess I'll bite on this issue. Some people are predisposed to be pedophiles, too. We would never say they should be able to act on what their "strong urges" are. That would not be an appropriate treatment and there's nothing wrong with telling them something is wrong with them mentally.Now, when I said that you should be able to amputate your fingers, I meant it. Why? I was taking your use of "strong urge" seriously, meaning that having those fingers would be causing you great discomfort and mental distress and agony. You should be able to take the appropriate treatment course to treat that condition. No one should tell you that there is something wrong with you, at least not in the context and emphasis you just used it.
There is a huge difference between a condition that if "treated" causes harm to others, and a condition that if treated causes no harm whatsoever. Of course paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to "treat" their condition. You also seem to have missed what I was saying about telling someone that there is something "wrong" with them. I was saying that it wouldn't be appropriate for someone to tell the finger-amputee person that there is something wrong with them. Not in the emphasised context in which Opus used it. It would only be appropriate for a medical professional to discuss with the amputee patient the possibility of a psychological condition causing the urge to amputate, and the various treatments available.
When dealing with a paedophile you're dealing with someone whose condition is potentially harmful to other humans. Big difference.0 -
I understand the difference. And in no way am I comparing people who want to cut off their fingers or pedophiles to transgenders. I just don't think that it is okay to say that whatever someone feels the natural urge to do makes is something that should be accepted and not questioned. Someone who feels the urge to mutilate their body shouldn't just be allowed to do it because it feels "natural" to them.There is a huge difference between a condition that if "treated" causes harm to others, and a condition that if treated causes no harm whatsoever. Of course paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to "treat" their condition. You also seem to have missed what I was saying about telling someone that there is something "wrong" with them. I was saying that it wouldn't be appropriate for someone to tell the finger-amputee person that there is something wrong with them. Not in the emphasised context in which Opus used it. It would only be appropriate for a medical professional to discuss with the amputee patient the possibility of a psychological condition causing the urge to amputate, and the various treatments available.
When dealing with a paedophile you're dealing with someone whose condition is potentially harmful to other humans. Big difference.0 -
I understand the difference. And in no way am I comparing people who want to cut off their fingers or pedophiles to transgenders. I just don't think that it is okay to say that whatever someone feels the natural urge to do makes is something that should be accepted and not questioned. Someone who feels the urge to mutilate their body shouldn't just be allowed to do it because it feels "natural" to them.
And my argument was not that this finger amputee person should be allowed to do it simply because it feels "natural". My argument was based on Opus' description of this being a "strong urge". I believed that he was equating this urge to the urge and sense of incongruence that transpersons feel. So my argument that the person should be allowed to have their fingers amputated was based on the fact that having those fingers would have been causing great distress and personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience. My argument is also that no one should be able to look at this person desiring amputation and say emphatically "there's something WRONG with you".0 -
There are actually people out there that really do want to be amputees, one guy even shot himself in the leg so the doctor would have to remove it. At this point NO doctor will operate and remove a limb on a person with this disorder. It's called Body Integrity Disorder.0
-
Aw man, Emmy beat me to it. I was just about to tell you of people who long to be amputees. They do shockingly desperate things to get this goal accomplished.0
-
I wonder how many people that are against it have ever watched a beauty pageant in their lives.0
-
This is where you lose me. I do NOT think people should just be allowed to do something "based on the fact that something is causing great distress or personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience". Are you suggesting we not treat the disorder rather than letting people act on their urges?So my argument that the person should be allowed to have their fingers amputated was based on the fact that having those fingers would have been causing great distress and personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience.
It is a disorder that can and should be treated. They should know that it's not okay to mutilate their bodies just because they have an urge to do so.My argument is also that no one should be able to look at this person desiring amputation and say emphatically "there's something WRONG with you".0 -
Aw man, Emmy beat me to it. I was just about to tell you of people who long to be amputees. They do shockingly desperate things to get this goal accomplished.
hehe you can get the next one
Oh and my only thoughts for the guy who shot himself so he could have his leg amputated is .............no disability for you Mr.0 -
This is where you lose me. I do NOT think people should just be allowed to do something "based on the fact that something is causing great distress or personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience". Are you suggesting we not treat the disorder rather than letting people act on their urges?So my argument that the person should be allowed to have their fingers amputated was based on the fact that having those fingers would have been causing great distress and personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience.
It is a disorder that can and should be treated. They should know that it's not okay to mutilate their bodies just because they have an urge to do so.My argument is also that no one should be able to look at this person desiring amputation and say emphatically "there's something WRONG with you".
If a disorder can be treated effectively without surgical intervention, that's fantastic. However, if finger amputee person is treated for a psych condition and is unresponsive, and the only option left is to amputate, then by all means go ahead and amputate! What business is it of anyone else in the world if this person gets fingers amputated? Is the amputation causing harm to other people in any way? Sometimes "mutilation" can be very beneficial.0 -
OK, I see what's happened. You have your own beliefs mixed up with what I've said. You're the one who must believe that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. Got it.
You have nothing. All you have done is proved that people who espouse a belief in accepting others can be just as close-minded and bigoted as people who hate those different from themselves. At least the latter category is honest in their intent.
You know nothing about me.0 -
OK, I see what's happened. You have your own beliefs mixed up with what I've said. You're the one who must believe that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. Got it.
You have nothing. All you have done is proved that people who espouse a belief in accepting others can be just as close-minded and bigoted as people who hate those different from themselves. At least the latter category is honest in their intent.
You know nothing about me.
And all you have is an argument that basically boils down to, "ewwww, don't chop off your penis. that's just crazy because chimps don't do it!"
How I have proven myself to be bigoted or close-minded will remain a mystery to me. Cheers. :flowerforyou:0 -
My argument is also that no one should be able to look at this person desiring amputation and say emphatically "there's something WRONG with you".
But there *IS* something WRONG with them. They are suffering from a mental disorder. The method of treatment is irrelevant to the fact that there is a fundamental error in their brain.0 -
I also find it interesting when those who tout "tolerance" fail to be tolerant of others. It's sub-optimization of tolerance.All you have done is proved that people who espouse a belief in accepting others can be just as close-minded and bigoted as people who hate those different from themselves.0 -
How I have proven myself to be bigoted or close-minded will remain a mystery to me. Cheers. :flowerforyou:
Which is why you will remain blissfully ignorant.0 -
This is where you lose me. I do NOT think people should just be allowed to do something "based on the fact that something is causing great distress or personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience". Are you suggesting we not treat the disorder rather than letting people act on their urges?So my argument that the person should be allowed to have their fingers amputated was based on the fact that having those fingers would have been causing great distress and personal hardship similar to what transpersons experience.
It is a disorder that can and should be treated. They should know that it's not okay to mutilate their bodies just because they have an urge to do so.My argument is also that no one should be able to look at this person desiring amputation and say emphatically "there's something WRONG with you".
If a disorder can be treated effectively without surgical intervention, that's fantastic. However, if finger amputee person is treated for a psych condition and is unresponsive, and the only option left is to amputate, then by all means go ahead and amputate! What business is it of anyone else in the world if this person gets fingers amputated? Is the amputation causing harm to other people in any way? Sometimes "mutilation" can be very beneficial.
I think my problem with this comes in where they want more than just a finger amputated, like a leg or an arm. Should they be allowed to draw disability? What if there amputations keep them from being contributing members of society. Where do we draw the line on what can be amputated and how many limbs? I should actually just start another post instead of derailing this one lol. Carry on0 -
How I have proven myself to be bigoted or close-minded will remain a mystery to me. Cheers. :flowerforyou:
Which is why you will remain blissfully ignorant.
There are many things about which I am ignorant, perhaps even blissfully so, but this topic is not one of them because I've actually chosen to educate myself on the issues facing transpersons, and I don't seek to impede their transitions or the development of their happiness.
Enjoy your chimp penis. :flowerforyou:0 -
You're the one who must believe that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. Got it.
Offensive and incorrect."ewwww, don't chop off your penis. that's just crazy because chimps don't do it!"
Also offensive and incorrect.
I never said "ewwwww." I never denigrated transgender people. I never called them "crazy."0 -
Enjoy your chimp penis. :flowerforyou:
Well there it is. I guess I should have known better.0 -
You're the one who must believe that we shouldn't treat psychological disorders. Got it.
Offensive and incorrect."ewwww, don't chop off your penis. that's just crazy because chimps don't do it!"
Also offensive and incorrect.
I never said "ewwwww." I never denigrated transgender people. I never called them "crazy."
Bull**** dude, you denigrated them with this:I do not understand the acceptance of "transgender" as being a normal or natural state for humans. Unless you are a hermaphrodite, you are definitively either male or female. If gender roles really are completely societal, then why would *anyone* ever feel the need to change their gender? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to believe that someone who was born with a penis was given the incorrect anatomy by nature.
and this:But are there male chimps who feel they should have been born female?
and this:But when you have a penis, you have a penis. I can't see how believing you shouldn't have a penis isn't a brain malfunction.
How the hell can you say that you've not denigrated the trans* community? Do you not know the definition of the word?0
This discussion has been closed.