People's views regarding transpeople

[Pyraxis]

On the contrary, the definitions I use are excellent for what they are for, recognising and detailing the human race. They are quite objective--there is no hidden agenda for science to study and describe human biology. The terminology used is there to be objective and unambiguous, to allow us to discuss the subject. If you want to discuss sociology, come up with terms suited for the purpose, but for this, as you say, human reproduction makes sense.

So what do you do about hermaphrodites? As I'm sure you know, for a considerable part of the last century, doctors would lop the male parts off and raise the baby female, for no reason other than it was more surgically feasible. That's not hundreds of years of evolutionary science, that's convenience. Doctors and scientists can be as wrong as any other human beings. If those babies later rebelled and decided to live as men, would you hold the same ridiculous antiquated views and insist on calling them female?

[odeon]

Too many if's, Pyraxis. And "Doctors and scientists can be as wrong as any other human beings" is the kind of a non-argument that doesn't actually mean anything but sounds good when you aren't sure of what to say but feel you have to post.

But I think I already explained my stance in previous posts. The subject of hermaphrodites in my mind is really yet another take on what can happen *after* nature did its thing. There are lots of other things you can do surgically, all of which are largely irrelevant to the definitions I'm talking about, as are the many parenting experiments altering the minds of children.

If Mowgli was real, would he be a wolf?

[Pyraxis]

Ok fine, I'll go back and reread, but quit squirming. Genetic chimeras happen. How is that *after* nature did its thing? It happens during fetal development.

My point about the surgery is to counter yours here:

I refer to GA as a "he" because a) I first learned who he was when he was most definitely a he, and b) because I'm mostly indifferent and habits kick in.

As in, first learned impression can be inaccurate and the case with the surgery is one such example.

Also because later, you started going on about how your views on the gender binary were backed by centuries of science, unlike those of trans people. Science is constantly evolving and theories are constantly being revised. What kind of studies and evidence would you require in order to be convinced that your paradigm could use some revision?

If Mowgli was born a human and socialized as a wolf, I would consider that both had influenced his development. If I were treating him medically, I would use human medicine. If I were communicating with him, I would use wolf body language. What's your point?

[odeon]

Ok fine, I'll go back and reread, but quit squirming. Genetic chimeras happen. How is that *after* nature did its thing? It happens during fetal development.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't chimerism in humans a kind of a mixture of both sexes, with the signs being anything from "hitchhiker's thumb" in one hand and a "normal" in the other, to ambiguous genitalia? IMO it is one of the cases where nature had problems along the way, something I have mentioned in earlier posts. I would think that with chimerism exact terminology is more important than ever, and the 5-way thing GA offered a couple of posts back wouldn't make explaining chimerism easier at all. Not sure it would even be relevant, tbh.

I fail to see why chimerism is relevant here. If I've read up correctly on the subject, transgenderism is not about chimerism at all. There aren't any detectable signs, nothing like an erring chromosome, no ambiguous genitalia, nothing like that.

What pronouns are used for chimeras? As I understand, the majority of chimeras go through life without ever realising what they are. The pronoun used is the one defined at birth, I should think. As for the cases where it's not clear, I don't know. I'm interested in finding out .

My point about the surgery is to counter yours here:

I refer to GA as a "he" because a) I first learned who he was when he was most definitely a he, and b) because I'm mostly indifferent and habits kick in.

As in, first learned impression can be inaccurate and the case with the surgery is one such example.

With GA, it wasn't just a first impression. Far from it.

Also because later, you started going on about how your views on the gender binary were backed by centuries of science, unlike those of trans people. Science is constantly evolving and theories are constantly being revised. What kind of studies and evidence would you require in order to be convinced that your paradigm could use some revision?

It's not my paradigm. It's a set of definitions that are handy and necessary for explaining human biology (including chimerism, btw). If science was to arrive at a conclusion where they could reasonably show the likelihood and necessity of some other system than binarism in human biology, I would certainly listen and perhaps change my stance. As things stand, I haven't seen it.

I fail to see how changing the terminology that is essentially a biological reality to accommodate for a social minority can ever be a good idea. IMO, adding to it is better from a scientific point of view.

If Mowgli was born a human and socialized as a wolf, I would consider that both had influenced his development. If I were treating him medically, I would use human medicine. If I were communicating with him, I would use wolf body language. What's your point?

My point was made in reference to yours about hermaphrodites and raising the baby as a female after chopping off body parts. The baby would still be male but a mutilated and abused one.

I notice that you avoided labelling Mowgli, though. What would he be? Wolf or human?

[Pyraxis]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't chimerism in humans a kind of a mixture of both sexes, with the signs being anything from "hitchhiker's thumb" in one hand and a "normal" in the other, to ambiguous genitalia? IMO it is one of the cases where nature had problems along the way, something I have mentioned in earlier posts. I would think that with chimerism exact terminology is more important than ever, and the 5-way thing GA offered a couple of posts back wouldn't make explaining chimerism easier at all. Not sure it would even be relevant, tbh.

In your posts here and here you simplify it as people being "born to" one gender or the other - either that or something "psychologically" went wrong. But you don't account for the possibility that one's feeling of self-identification might be the first indication of an abnormality. Here you say your problem is with giving people special treatment, here you say it's because it takes a conscious effort, but here you say you don't hate groups, you hate individuals. So, what, you won't expend conscious effort on special treatment unless it's special hatred? 

But seriously, my problem was with the bits later on when you started saying that trans people were trying to shove pronouns down your throat and you refused to redefine what a man and a woman were. That hundreds of years of evolutionary science backed up your position, and that intentions (who's intentions? Mother nature's? God's?) were what defined the result. I don't think calling people herms, merms and ferms is the answer either, but - what are you worried about? That somebody like GA would flipflop and want to be called a male one day, a female the next, male the next, and back to female again? I get that that would be ridiculous, but since a transition is a once-off, I don't see the big deal.

I fail to see why chimerism is relevant here. If I've read up correctly on the subject, transgenderism is not about chimerism at all. There aren't any detectable signs, nothing like an erring chromosome, no ambiguous genitalia, nothing like that.

How many of the people exploring transgenderism have actually had their sex chromosomes tested? Has GA? I don't think people should have to provide genetic test results before asking people to refer to them by their identified gender. Besides, even that wouldn't account for cases of XX males and XY females. True, there are cases where there's no obvious physiological basis. But I don't see any good reason not to accept a person's self-identification. In ten years, if Kayleigh had fully transitioned and was using a female identity everywhere, would you still insist on clinging to your first impression and calling her a male because she was unable to have a baby?

What pronouns are used for chimeras? As I understand, the majority of chimeras go through life without ever realising what they are. The pronoun used is the one defined at birth, I should think. As for the cases where it's not clear, I don't know. I'm interested in finding out.

I don't know a set of official rules. The Intersex Society of North America recommends that a baby be given a gender assignment at birth, whichever is more likely, but no corrective surgery. They don't recommend that a child be raised as a "third gender", but to give them honest and accurate information about their condition, so that when they're old enough, they can decide which gender they want to be.

With GA, it wasn't just a first impression. Far from it.

Have you considered how difficult it is to change social conditioning that's been instilled since birth? Of course GA used to exhibit masculine traits, and now as Kayleigh she is working to reprogram her brain to overcome the training and act in a way more aligned with her natural self. If you're having difficulty revising your mental concept, that task is exponentially more difficult from the inside. Not something to be undertaken on a whim, and an ongoing process.

It's not my paradigm. It's a set of definitions that are handy and necessary for explaining human biology (including chimerism, btw). If science was to arrive at a conclusion where they could reasonably show the likelihood and necessity of some other system than binarism in human biology, I would certainly listen and perhaps change my stance. As things stand, I haven't seen it.

Here is an excellent article about transgender and intersex treatment done in the name of social normalization. It violates patients' medical rights, including lying and withholding critical information from patients and their parents, and doing unnecessary surgery on functioning sexual organs before a patient is old enough to consent. The reasoning is that it's in people's best interests to be forced to conform to the binary system, but the suicide rates of patients say otherwise.

Not directly related, but for curiosity's sake, here is an article about a woman who needed a kidney transplant and the results of the tissue-matching test told her she was not the mother of two of her biological sons. It took them ten years to figure it out - the binary system was not a heck of a lot of help.

I fail to see how changing the terminology that is essentially a biological reality to accommodate for a social minority can ever be a good idea. IMO, adding to it is better from a scientific point of view.

It's not a biological reality. Here is a list of the frequency of various intersex conditions. If you don't want to change the terminology of "he/she" and "his/hers", are you in favor of "zie" and "zer"? (FWIW some of the trans people I know prefer those pronouns and some think they sound stupid.)

My point was made in reference to yours about hermaphrodites and raising the baby as a female after chopping off body parts. The baby would still be male but a mutilated and abused one.

I notice that you avoided labelling Mowgli, though. What would he be? Wolf or human?

Why must I simplify it to an inaccurate binary? To say he was wolf would belie the biological reality - though I would do it if I were talking to somebody who understood identity on the symbolic level, ie in a spiritual discussion (I agree with what you said in the other thread about the treatment of trans people on I2 vs the treatment of religious people). To say he was human would presuppose a lot of extra behaviors that he wouldn't have. I wouldn't do it if I were dealing with someone who would mistreat him based on sloppy thinking and false expectations.

[renaeden]

GA did have her sex chromosomes tested and they turned out XY.

[GalileoAce]

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

I disagree, but I don't have the evidence to support me at this point.

Where do those who can't reproduce fall? Are they neither man nor woman? Your definitions and expectations are narrow, and thus follows your mind.

As I tried to explain earlier, mistakes happen all the time when nature does its thing. I would say that the intentions are what define the result, not the result itself. They aren't my definitions, though. It's basic human biology and thus I do have the evidence supporting my views. It's all over teh interwebs if you care to look.

The English language is notorious for being less than perfectly adequate in describing how things are.

But how come I am not to fall into the "mistakes" category? I have a female mind, but a male body. And there is a move to define transsexuality in the same category at intersex,

both from professionals,
http://oiiaustralia.com/media/articles/transsexuals-intersexed-individuals/

and others,
http://www.thescavenger.net/isgd/trans-as-intersex-crossing-the-line-56934.html

If you think that is disrespectful then the same will apply equally to you.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

You are trying to force me to use your definitions, or else I am being disrespectful. I know, I know, you aren't literally "forcing" me, but if I insist on the "he" as defined on basic human biology and not some 5-sex theory from an early nineties essay or whatever, or because that's how you feel now, it is me being disrespectful.

There is two arguments here;

Definitions and Pronouns.

Human biology is anything but basic. And we all know that there is no such thing as normal, this is especially so in biology. There are binary categories based on human reproductive organs. And while gender is mental and sex is physical, our perceptions of gender often take their cues from the sex. The pronouns we use are based largely on perception of gender and social interaction. Most people currently perceive me as female and socialise as such.

I feel you're being disrespectful of me when you misgender me in the way you have because it is essentially stripping me of my mental identity. Who I am, and who I see myself to be. When you call me he and refer to me as male, you're essentially saying that how I view myself is wrong. And that really hurts.

I know it can be hard for non-trans people to understand, my parents have a hard time with it, but being trans isn't a decision. I didn't decided to be a girl. I am a girl, I was just born with the wrong biology. Science doesn't currently fully understand how it happens, but there is some talk of it being wrong hormones whilst in the womb, or some sort of genetic trigger. I don't really know. All I do know is that I am a girl. When I was trying to male it was such a shallow hollow existence, and now I feel full of life, actually alive. So to call me male is to say that I should go back to that hollow existence, and that being a girl, being alive is wrong.

That hurts, and it's disrespects me and my right to live a full and happy life.

[Frolic_Fun]

How the fuck does it hurt you? You could *easily* ignore this and live in your protective bubble of naive happyness by you know, going off the internet?

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

How the fuck does it hurt you? You could *easily* ignore this and live in your protective bubble of naive happyness by you know, going off the internet?

THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

[Frolic_Fun]

It is until you plug out the modem and actually have a life.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

It is until you plug out the modem and actually have a life.

What is this thing you call... a life? Is it a new video game?

[Frolic_Fun]

The best MMO in the world, in fact.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

The best MMO in the world, in fact.

Shit, that game? It's alright, but it has no reset when you die or fuck up so badly. They really need to add that as a new feature.

[renaeden]

^Yes it has those disadvantages but the graphics are excellent.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

^Yes it has those disadvantages but the graphics are excellent.

Not to mention, the gameplay is exceptional in quality, you can literally do anything as long as you respect the game physics. But no hax is yet to found to violate the physics of it.