I absolutely think they should participate! Just because someone is born into the wrong body doesn't mean that they aren't all woman.

I have zero tolerance for homophobes, gay bashing or anything of the like. I'm so sorry that you had to deal with that bulls*** on fb.

Yeah I don't have a problem with it, I mean she's got all the parts and went through god knows what to get that way. She's earned the right to call herself a female. Although I will say this and it's a little off topic, Anybody that has a sex change and dates the opposite sex should make sure their partner knows, I think the partner has a right to know if you used to be a man/woman.

As long as having cosmetic work done isn't against the rules for everyone, then of course she should have been allowed to participate!

OK, this here is a bit different than what the OP brings up.

I have a similar scenario. Imagine a fraternity, steeped in hundreds of years of tradition. One member, born a genetic male, undergoes gener reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy.

This lady came back to the fraternity. A vote was needed to see if she would be allowed back into the fraternity. It was voted that although she identified as a female, she was born male, has male DNA and was deemed to still be a brother in the fraternity.

So in the fraternity, there is one female member. But she is referred to as "brother"

In the case of the pageant, yay. She is a female and should participate. But what about a fraternity? Can a trans female join a fraternity because they have/had a male body? What if she *was* a member, should she then be excluded?

Jenna Talackova is a very strong-willed, beautiful, and courageous woman who has helped the trans* community in many ways. Every time there's a high-profile case like this there are many people who become more educated about the issues facing the trans* community, and there are more people who become accepting, even those who become advocated and activists. Jenna's participation in the Miss Universe competition was ultimately allowed because she's a woman, and all women, should they choose to compete in such an event, should be allowed to do it.

I strongly disagree with the "born a man" thing that is thrown around so much regarding transsexual women. 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.

I would also like to point out that Jenna has had only two surgeries that could be considered cosmetic: laryngeal prominence (LP) reduction, and breast augmentation (BA). Her genital surgery was not cosmetic, it was medically necessary. Also, her genital surgery didn't really affect how she looks except without underwear on. Miss Universe is not a nude competition, as far as I know. The LP reduction could also be considered medically necessary if her LP was quite large and noticeable pre-surgery. The LP is considered to be sexually dimorphic, but a great deal of overlap exists in the sexes regarding LP size. There are many cisgender women who have quite prominent and noticeable LPs. Even these women are often tortured by those ignorant enough in society to not know of that overlap exists in traits considered to be sexually dimorphic. Jenna's BA could also be considered medically necessary given that the vast majority of the female population has protruding breasts. Again, there is overlap, some cisgender women never develop protruding breasts, some cisgender men do. Human biology is often more than willing to break the human-made rules of what is male and what is female.

As far as I know, Jenna has not had facial feminisation surgery (FFS). This is the surgery during which a large number of bones in the face are reshaped to be more "feminine" through chiselling, or breaking and setting. I have read a lot about Jenna's story, including the entire story of her transition, and FFS is never mentioned. The face is the first thing we notice about a person, the first place we see beauty. However, there isn't really such a thing as a custom order when it comes to FFS. What you have in your face already is pretty much all there is with which to work. Even if Jenna did have FFS at some point, and I truly don't believe she needs it, I'd still not believe it appropriate to ban her from competition because of this, even if FFS enhances perceived beauty. Cisgender women have beauty-enhancing procedures all the day. We get Botox, rhinoplasty, chin reductions, forehead reshaping and contouring, face lifts, make our boobs bigger, etc. I am certain that one or more of the Miss Universe contestants, aside from Jenna, have had one or more of these procedures.

Bottom line: Jenna is a woman. She was never a "man", and never will be. She was born female-minded, male-bodied, one of the most unfortunate biological configurations existent in nature. She has been through hell to become the incredible person that she is. She is deserving of respect and acceptance, or at least tolerance. That is all.

OK, this here is a bit different than what the OP brings up.

I have a similar scenario. Imagine a fraternity, steeped in hundreds of years of tradition. One member, born a genetic male, undergoes gener reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy.

This lady came back to the fraternity. A vote was needed to see if she would be allowed back into the fraternity. It was voted that although she identified as a female, she was born male, has male DNA and was deemed to still be a brother in the fraternity.

So in the fraternity, there is one female member. But she is referred to as "brother"

In the case of the pageant, yay. She is a female and should participate. But what about a fraternity? Can a trans female join a fraternity because they have/had a male body? What if she *was* a member, should she then be excluded?

You should have to pick one and stick with it, no back and forth on the gender to what suits you and your situation at the moment. That brother isn't a brother anymore, and that was her decision, she shouldn't get to keep that, she chose what gender she wanted to be.

From WPATH

The current Board of Directors of the WPATH herewith expresses its conviction that sex (gender) reassignment, properly indicated and performed as provided by the Standards of Care, has proven to be beneficial and effective in the treatment of individuals with transsexualism, gender identity disorder, and/or gender dysphoria. Sex reassignment plays an undisputed role in contributing toward favorable outcomes, and comprises Real Life Experience, legal name and sex change on identity documents, as well as medically necessary hormone treatment, counseling, psychotherapy, and other medical procedures. Genital reconstruction is not required for social gender recognition, and such surgery should not be a prerequisite for document or record changes; the Real Life Experience component of the transition process is crucial to psychological adjustment, and is usually completed prior to any genital reconstruction, when appropriate for the patient, according to the WPATH Standards of Care. Changes to documentation are important aids to social functioning, and are a necessary component of the pre-surgical process; delay of document changes may have a deleterious impact on a patient's social integration and personal safety.



Medically necessary sex reassignment procedures also include complete hysterectomy, bilateral mastectomy, chest reconstruction or augmentation as appropriate to each patient (including breast prostheses if necessary), genital reconstruction (by various techniques which must be appropriate to each patient, including, for example, skin flap hair removal, penile and testicular prostheses, as necessary), facial hair removal, and certain facial plastic reconstruction as appropriate to the patient.

It should also be noted that the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association maintain that this surgery is medically necessary. Both organisations also push for full equality for trans* persons. It's a beautiful thing.

Here's a medical dictionary definition of "medically necessary":

Managed care adjective Referring to a covered service or treatment that is absolutely necessary to protect and enhance the health status of a Pt, and could adversely affect the Pt's condition if omitted, in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice.
Medically necessary, criteria
a. Appropriate for the Sx and diagnosis or treatment of a condition, illness or injury
b. Provided for the diagnosis or the direct care and treatment of the condition, illness or injury
c. In accordance with the standards of good medical practice in the service area
d. Not primarily for the convenience of a plan member or a plan provider
e. The most appropriate level or type of service or supply which can safely be provided to the plan member.

I would argue that if sex reassignment surgery is medically necessary, than so should an elective hysterectomy or mastectomy be deemed medically necessary and thusly covered by insurance should the patient have a family history of cancer (as an example). Yet it's not.
Then again... just about everything about health care is screwed up.

I don't know that an elective hysterectomy for preventative measures is really "medically necessary". Sex reassignment surgery is deemed medically necessary by a psychiatrists for mental health, which is medical.

I would argue that if sex reassignment surgery is medically necessary, than so should an elective hysterectomy or mastectomy be deemed medically necessary and thusly covered by insurance should the patient have a family history of cancer (as an example). Yet it's not.

Then again... just about everything about health care is screwed up.

Insurance companies are allowed to set their own policies regarding medical necessity. They are usually in line with current practice, but not always, and that's when patients should challenge the insurance policies. Many insurance companies have already changed their policies to reflect that transsexual surgeries are medically necessary. Eventually every insurance company will have similar policies.

I would argue that if sex reassignment surgery is medically necessary, than so should an elective hysterectomy or mastectomy be deemed medically necessary and thusly covered by insurance should the patient have a family history of cancer (as an example). Yet it's not.

Then again... just about everything about health care is screwed up.

Insurance companies are allowed to set their own policies regarding medical necessity. They are usually in line with current practice, but not always, and that's when patients should challenge the insurance policies. Many insurance companies have already changed their policies to reflect that transsexual surgeries are medically necessary. Eventually every insurance company will have similar policies.

And don't get me wrong... I agree that they should. I just didn't actually know it had been deemed medically necessary and covered by at least some insurance companies to date.

I would argue that if sex reassignment surgery is medically necessary, than so should an elective hysterectomy or mastectomy be deemed medically necessary and thusly covered by insurance should the patient have a family history of cancer (as an example). Yet it's not.
Then again... just about everything about health care is screwed up.

I don't know that an elective hysterectomy for preventative measures is really "medically necessary". Sex reassignment surgery is deemed medically necessary by a psychiatrists for mental health, which is medical.

If you have a long family history of cancer, I wouldn't debate the psychological impact of thinking your tatas are ticking time bombs to death deems it medically necessary.

I personally know three people who have had an elective hysterectomy and double mastectomy because of their family history. They were done have children and immediately proceeded w/ the surgery. They're rich, so it was no thing to cover it themselves... but, I see it as equally medically necessary as gender reassignment.

There's a difference between treating for a present condition and treating for a POTENTIAL condition. Transsexuals who undergo genital surgery are doing so to treat a real condition. Patients with a family history of breast cancer who elect to have double mastectomy are treating for the potential condition, not one that is already realised. Medically, these treatments are very different, done for entirely different reasons, and should not be equated.

Well, that sucks all the fun out of debatable debating *LOL*

I'm always iffy on the whole gender reassignment surgery being a "cure" for the "diseased." It's scary to think of the medical community somehow "fixing" personal sexual identity.

I have yet to come up with a way to reconcile my feelings on this, though everyone should have the chance to be themselves as hard as they possibly can.

I'm always iffy on the whole gender reassignment surgery being a "cure" for the "diseased." It's scary to think of the medical community somehow "fixing" personal sexual identity.

I have yet to come up with a way to reconcile my feelings on this, though everyone should have the chance to be themselves as hard as they possibly can.

The surgery is not touted as the "cure", nor is being transsexual a disease. Transsexuals experience a strong sense of incongruence with their assigned sex. Genital surgery is the best treatment option available to deal with that sense of incongruence. The DSM-V will reflect current knowledge of gender identity and gender variance. "Gender Identity Disorder" will die with the DSM-IV, as it should because trans people are not disordered, and born with the DSM-V will be "gender incongruence". The DSM-V will also make clear the fact that gender identity and sexual orientation are separate and unrelated aspects of identity.

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.