Why do some MTF's act like gay men?

[Mahsa Tezani]

Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.

But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.

Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After  transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.

Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.

You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

I do not make claim outside direct personal subjective experience and perception, and I do require that others who wish to refute such to bring out a valid rationale. I can't exclude philosophy since I'm not interested in the provisional statistical data of socialogy, psychology, and specific 'gender politics' regardless of division. I'm interested in hard science, and medicinal data which are fixed and does not differ due to culture and geographical differences (with these I always would bring reference, as my personal opinion has no value). But gender psychology is an area which differ with culture and geographical differences, including influence of 'gender politics'. All of these studies are provisional and not absolute. Citing these as reference merely serve to win an argument unfairly, but it make discussion pointless, as winning and losing make no difference with regards to element of truth which will be absence. Human behaviour and gender perception if covered by philosophy, then definitive view can be established based on philosophical approach to evidence, i.e. direct empirical experience which is strictly at subjective level.

You're making diversionary statements.  You talk about "hard science", yet you're resolute in denying the fact that empiricism and the empirical method have no place in science, which is totally bizarre considering that the empirical method is one of the core tenets by which science is practiced today.
Also, this has nothing to do with "gender politics".  Last I heard we were talking about male and female psychosexual and sexuality dimorphism and dichotomy, unless you've decided to give up on that and continue this exercise in futility of referring over and over again to the vague amorphous blob you're hurling around called "philosophy".

I have a male biological body, even though it is now feminized by hrt, I can still recall what it is like when the reproductive mechanism is fully functional as male, with the addition of a psychological state that is in concordance with the biological impetus. What is more valid, memory of an empirical experience, or a statistical data that is not directly relevent to oneself personally? Now those who have the male reproductive mechanism which is fully functional without negatively influence by hrt should be able to personally experience what is being stated and confirm it as empirical evidence.

What your male-bodied experience was does not constitute all male-bodied sexual experience.  The only credible, largely applicable conclusions to be drawn about sexuality are not from personal anecdotes but from...you guessed it, empirical statistical results.  Your claims about your own male sexuality are not falsifiable, because nobody else can experience them to prove or disprove them.  Karl Popper, who you doubtless know about if you're this interested in empiricism and philosophy, states that something is only functionally observable if it is falsifiable.  Your claims aren't, so...they don't function as an empirical datum.

This is based on my years of personal observation of men and women intereaction both east and west, and through direct personal experience as a psychological female (MTF), I can confirm the shift of male consciousness to female results in marginally weak focus on the partner (male) attractiveness, and that within this weak attention to the partner's feature, it is not handsomeness (face) but the height and shoulder width appears to be more important. Whereas in the male consciousness, the attractiveness of the female partner is most important than all other critera, as long as higher sexual satisfaction is aimed. He refused whatever view points that are said, yet failed to provide his own rational, except someone else words (as statistics, not rational explanation) to support his opposing stance. I can bring out supportive views of others, but that is pointless in a discussion, if a personal view is worth zero value, there is no point for a discussion,  since all views exist out there and that these are considered valid objective data (false of course).

You can confirm all you want about your own experiences, but that means literally zero because your experiences are not observable by anyone except for you.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but evidentially-backed explanations (which are empirical, not rational, true, although why would you care if they're rational considering you're trying to appeal from an empiricist's point of view?) are precisely what you need to prove an argument.  You know, argument and evidence?  The entire foundation of persuasive speaking?

I would avoid using the term 'empirical' for science, instead 'practical' should be the word for science that is near the meaning of empiricism. Science cannot be associated with empiricism, as empiricism required an experience which is lived, scientific instrument still required a human observer, but science at this stage completely disregard the factor of this observer, while all credits are due to these scientific instruments, what does work is considered practical, empiricism is concerning consciousness, it is outside the scope of physics. Something as empirical cannot be detected by instrument of physics, for example, the experience of another person, no instrument of science can sense that, this experience can be describe by this person experiencing it, by writing or speech, but these words that describe the experience are not in an empirical state, then scientific instrument cannot simulate an empirical state as it involved the consciousness of the person. To be in the empirical state one must duplicate the experience as describe in the words in one's personal experience which is strictly subjective, but science reject all personal subjective 'opinions'. Gender perception involved empirical experience, it is a field of philosophy, not science, much less of statistical data which is information that is death long ago, not living experience (empirical truth).

See above.  The empirical method is a pillar of modern science. 

I didn't bring out statistical data but empirical experience that involved consciousness, the latter is field of philosophy, science does not cover this field. You can dismissed the philosophy basis and render my statement as personal opinions, thus invalidate by your version of science, but you will be missing the point in this discussion.

Empiricism directly opposes any statistical datas, datas are based on causes and conditions are death statistics, they are changed the moment they are outside of empirical experience of their observers. Past data can never keep up with empirical data found only in each flesh moment of personal experience. Why would someone value a data that was collected several months or years ago over an empirical experience of perception (or memory event) that occurred as one is writing? Just because it is subjective, of one individual, does not make it less reliable, as collective data is also the sum of individual testimony (except you could also have mixture of individuals who could be confused and ignored about their own gender, thus making the statistic much unreliable).

See above.  Empiricism directly opposes a priori reasoning, which is what you're doing here by championing your own understanding of your own experiences and drawing conclusions from them.  Without empirical results (i.e., data, experimental evidence), you are supporting the polar opposite of the concept you claim to be.
Subjectivity doesn't necessarily mean it's less "reliable", inasmuch as there can be reliability in a subject like one's own understanding of one's own sexual identity and sexuality, but it does mean that it's not participating in an empirical model, where the collection of experimental evidence is critical.
Let's put it this way.  We are both trans females, yet my experiences are totally different from yours.  Under your model, I could extrapolate all manner of claims stemming from my own understanding of my own sexuality and apply these claims to everyone, and that would be perfectly normal and logical use of "empirical data".  Even though it would directly violate your beliefs and would also be completely unfalsifiable.

Sensory experience is individual based, science discredit the individual opinion (as any words from an individual is an opinion), it favour collection of individual data simply because it didn't trust individual but the mass. In other words, it favour collective opinions, over empircal experience. You don't need mass data,  since empirical experience of each individual is identical in the rest, consciousness is the same in each and everyone (a philosophical view). Thus science is ignorant of what empirical experience is, and it does not cover consciousness as it does not embrace the philosphical view that will enable it to rely on individual data, instead of blindly reliance on mass data.

*sigh* Science is not opinion.  Science is not opinion.  It's the collection of...empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world!  This is not really an opinion, either.  You're free to have your own ideas and beliefs about the definition of "science" and "empiricism", but in that case you would be holding an opinion.

How many times have you exchange idea with me, yet you are implying you know more, how old are you?

I'm implying nothing.  Also, my age is irrelevant.  Perhaps a better question to ask is, "how much experience do you have within the fields of science and philosophy?" To that I will happily answer that I am relatively well-versed in the fields, though admittedly I have more experience with more recent philosophies and philosophers.  Foucault, Derrida and other post-structuralists are my favorites, though I'm also familiar with several empiricists like Locke, and, to some extent, Hobbes.  In terms of scientific knowledge, I have several years of experience in biology, and my parents' jobs as physicians has instilled in me a fascination for human physiology, something I've also pursued vigorously.

There is no such thing as 'objective opinion' as empirical, as empiricism demand an experiential state, with consciousness directly experienced as lived. So it is a mode of existence which can only be personally experienced (to another this is considered as subjective / personal opinions), what is obtained from others are not empirical to oneself, until the experience is duplicate directly in one's immediate experience. My empirical theory is strictly of buddhist philosophy, so do not be surprise it would differed from what you would have knew, you could continue to argue definitions, but make sure you also grasped mine if you desire to understand what is being discussed.

So basically, pretty much all of the concepts you outlined as empirically sound because you experienced them are now no longer so because they don't apply to me at all. 

The agender reality is nothing new to me, even my philosophy cover it as universal, but it simply mean the essence of mind is beyond gender, but mind do seek to become male or female. Thus gender can be fluid, not fixed, because in existence (physical), there will always be charateristics of gender in the body, the mind simply adapt to it or against it toward the opposing gender. Since there is presence of desire within the mind, there is a need to become either male or female. Only in the unconscious or death state, where desire/passion is completely absence, that there will be absence of any becoming, that the state of agender is possible (there is no such state as permanent of course).

Don't tell other people what their identifications are.  Someone who identifies as agender is identifying as neither male nor female (not partially male and partially female).  I don't think they have a need to become either male or female or anything in between, because their identity lies outside the concept of gender in the first place, and I don't think an agender person would take kindly to the suggestion that they can only be agender when they're sleeping or dead.

As mentioned, my version is of buddhist philosophy. The focus apparently different, the buddhist version is strictly philosophical that concerned the empirical experience of consciousness. It concerns little about material objects, but what affecting the mind and its psychological state in experiential mode. So arguing on definition is meaningless since your version of empirism is inapplicable to the version that I used, but to refute those views with basis in this philosophical view, you need to provide a valid rationale. So far such statistic and simple negation failed to address the mind and its craving toward becoming as well as toward the object of desire, neither did they address the biological gender distinctions which clearly have psychological impact on the mind.

Okay, now that I see where you're coming from in terms of spirituality, and from my knowledge of studies of Buddhism and empiricism, I'm starting to see where you're coming from.  The problem is that, if you're going to accept the validity of the individual experience, you can't invalidate someone else's individual experience, even if the way they publish those observations is in the form of data.

My philosophy view already had the impetus (both biological and psychological) covered,  so there is no requirement to learn from statistical data, the desire component of mind is known as the motivating force behind all variations, and that the gender polerity is what the mind seeks, to fulfill its craving subjectively and objectively. To neutralize the gender binary is therefore neutralize the polerity from which desire can be based.

...Pardon?  I don't think my mind is seeking the gender polarity, whatever that means.

I have different requirement of empiricism, your defined version does not fulfill the requirement. Therefore based on your version, you still have the need to rely on statistical data, my version does not need that, as it is self-sufficient (self-verified) due to the higher requirement.

It's difficult to have an argument regarding empiricism when you spontaneously decide you want to call something else entirely empiricism.

As mentioned, agender do have the same mind with desire for a gender identity, and that gender discordance (GID) is showing discordance, not the non-existence of gender distinctions. In fact, it is the existence of the gender distinctions that is the cause of discordance, not its absence.

Uh, no, if I understand correctly (from the agender people I know!  Look, ma, empirical evidence!), agender is the lack of a gender identity.  Some agender people may not have any body dysphoria at all.

Circular! How can I do a simple negation for not having your rationale to negate in the first place?

The condition of in between gender required the existence of the gender binary, in the absence of the two gender characteristics, the state of in-between does not have a basis for independent existence.

Which is why it's a spectrum, and /not/ a binary.  See below re: binary.

Again you showed a notion of binary as male and female, and that the middle is outside the two poles, this is a logical fallacy, without the two poles, the definition of middle does not exist!

"Binary" does not mean that there are two poles and a spectrum.  "Binary" means there are two options, one and zero, pink and blue, female and male.  That's why people identifying between the two poles want to break down the binary, because the binary prevents people from their right to self-identification wherever they want in the spectrum.

Buddhist philosphy is much strict on the requirement for logical consistency.

I don't see where you're pointing out logical inconsistencies, except in your own decision to define empiricism however you want so that it fits better with your own beliefs.  I'm perfectly fine with that; just be aware that there is an entire scientific community that will disagree with you on your use of the world "empirical" as incorrectly applied.

Since you have not present any valid rationale, it is enough just to refute your logical consistency and demonstrate your lack of the required empiricism in method.

Pardon?  Less word salad, please.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.

But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.

Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After  transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.

Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.

You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.

Before transition, I was a shell.
Now, I'm a human being.

I'm not the same person, though that's more due to personal maturation; otherwise, I agree with you on the concept of retention of self, even if I'll respectfully disagree on your point that "the essence of trans is duality".  I don't have anything dual about me.

[lilacwoman]

I'd like to meet a genderless person one day.
I have worked among a huge number of males and a huge number of females but I've never seen anything approaching genderless.
I have noticed many whose beliefs, upbringing, sexual desires or lack of makes them try to eliminate stereotypical behaviour, clothing, work and lifestyles but they always display one or other of the two genders.
To be truthful I can't imagine how a person could be genderless.
Any person claiming to be genderless would probably display gender by the way they claim to be genderless and the evidence they use.

[cynthialee]

Never seen a truely genderless person IRL.

But I have met people who you would have to ask to know if they were male or female due to having enough of both genders secondary traits to confuse the internal gender determiner.
My spouse is well on the way to that state. Soon my spouse will be so blended in apearance that you will not be able to easily gender hir.

So while that is not a state of genderlessness, it is definatly a state of existance where you will not be able to easily gender hir, and as such, ze will be in a state of genderlessness in the minds eye of the beholder.

savvy?

[Jacelyn]

You're making diversionary statements.  You talk about "hard science", yet you're resolute in denying the fact that empiricism and the empirical method have no place in science, which is totally bizarre considering that the empirical method is one of the core tenets by which science is practiced today.
Also, this has nothing to do with "gender politics".  Last I heard we were talking about male and female psychosexual and sexuality dimorphism and dichotomy, unless you've decided to give up on that and continue this exercise in futility of referring over and over again to the vague amorphous blob you're hurling around called "philosophy"...

I don't denial cause and effect component of science, it is this component that required empirical (real time) observation, but it is not about empiriciam which involved consciousness and time that is related to consciousness and mind. Such empiricism is field of philosophy. Gender is not hard science, it is field of socialogy and psychology, it is also of humanity which involved statistical survey to substantiate their studies. Gender biology is actual science, but not the psychological gender. So all discussion involving sensitivity of gender is of politics and cultural norms. Science has no such sensitivity. That said, sexuality is about binary dichotomy, it ultimately involved philosophy, its socialogy/humanity component is optional which is fine for politics but not science.

What your male-bodied experience was does not constitute all male-bodied sexual experience.  The only credible, largely applicable conclusions to be drawn about sexuality are not from personal anecdotes but from...you guessed it, empirical statistical results. 

Exception is not the rule, being male share a similar biological mechanism with similar males, thus share a common biological response. If this is a gamble of yes or no (to sharing a common biological response), then the odd of being positive is too high. The same apply to male and female consciousness, male and male as well as female and female shared a common impetus and traits.

This is simple logic in determining odds.

Your claims about your own male sexuality are not falsifiable, because nobody else can experience them to prove or disprove them.  Karl Popper, who you doubtless know about if you're this interested in empiricism and philosophy, states that something is only functionally observable if it is falsifiable.  Your claims aren't, so...they don't function as an empirical datum.

Why falsify when the premise is being biologically healthy and that psychological it is in concordance with the biological impetus? If you falsify it, then the premise is false, that would defeat the logical statement. The premise states a condition for it to be true. I can also make a premise that say that I'm psychologically in discordance with the biological impetus,  and that I have an experience of feminine sexual response, with the aid of the male biological sexual mechanism which enhance the desire for sex, this would equally apply to number of males who share similar discordance, and be true as long as the premise or condition applied.

You can confirm all you want about your own experiences, but that means literally zero because your experiences are not observable by anyone except for you.

This is just question of trust, but has nothing to do with the capacity for the claim to be true, since all conditions are available subjectively. If you want to argue the problem of trust, then you should not involved in a discussion, as it demand too much work for someone who is merely interested in sharing a knowledge, not working on a job for you. That is, I'm not getting paid to get you to become convinced. In an intellectual discussion, even the question of trust don't exist, since both parties merely interested in logical consistency, i.e. if a statement is logical true, why it has to concern you whether the person just make it up? It's aim could be just educational.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but evidentially-backed explanations (which are empirical, not rational, true, although why would you care if they're rational considering you're trying to appeal from an empiricist's point of view?) are precisely what you need to prove an argument.  You know, argument and evidence?  The entire foundation of persuasive speaking?

Concerning empirical standard, it is not there because of the need to prove to another, but it is a method for oneself to verify a truth concerning perception, i.e. in this case of gender. Science do that because of the need to substantial the cause and effect component in real time. Empirical truth is itself the basis of rationality, so I also demand a rationale basis for any opposing views. In other word, I'm able to show my rationale for the claim as basing on empirical standard despite being subjective and personal, but what it is the rationale of those opposing it?

Empiricism directly opposes a priori reasoning, which is what you're doing here by championing your own understanding of your own experiences and drawing conclusions from them. 
Without empirical results (i.e., data, experimental evidence), you are supporting the polar opposite of the concept you claim to be.
Subjectivity doesn't necessarily mean it's less "reliable", inasmuch as there can be reliability in a subject like one's own understanding of one's own sexual identity and sexuality, but it does mean that it's not participating in an empirical model, where the collection of experimental evidence is critical.
Let's put it this way.  We are both trans females, yet my experiences are totally different from yours.  Under your model, I could extrapolate all manner of claims stemming from my own understanding of my own sexuality and apply these claims to everyone, and that would be perfectly normal and logical use of "empirical data".  Even though it would directly violate your beliefs and would also be completely unfalsifiable.

In similar conditions (both biologically and psychologically), the experience would be similar, the minor difference can then be ignored, and the result taken as prove of universal similarity. It is all about causes and conditions, no one gender variant is so unique that there is no universal explanation for it, such as agender and so on, as even this term it is not absolute exist as such,  it is just a suitable labeling, the trait of gender binary can still be trace. Biologically there is really no such thing as agender, since the body by default is female, it is due to healthy development in the direction of male, that maleness is determined. As for psychological gender, it depends on the mental factors, the degree of desire to be of either gender, however minimum, there will always be a degree that can be determine, unless the person is unconsciousness, death or mentally handicapped. Even the wishes to be agender psychologically exist, such as monks and nuns who only interested in the passionless lifestyle, even though biologically they do have gender distinctions (thus being called nun and monk respectively), however this agender is simply the result of having both gender distinction neutralized, in other words, without the gender binary, then this state of agender does not exist (note the 'a' in agender still dependence on 'gender'). The neutralization of gender is clearly the neutralization of desire, this is what monkhood attempting to communicates in their outward appearance. For normal person with healthy desire not being restrained artificially, there is no such thing as no desire to be male or female.

*sigh* Science is not opinion.  Science is not opinion.  It's the collection of...empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world!  This is not really an opinion, either.  You're free to have your own ideas and beliefs about the definition of "science" and "empiricism", but in that case you would be holding an opinion.

I'm refering to 'gender science' which should more accurately be called gender psychology, it is not hard science but under socialogy / humanity.

So basically, pretty much all of the concepts you outlined as empirically sound because you experienced them are now no longer so because they don't apply to me at all.

They don't apply to you in the form of words, but apply to your own empirical mode basing on those words as guidelines. In other words, only in a subjective state, not in objective form of data.

This is what empiricism mean. You don't need 1,000,000 statistical data, as they all useless to you, since it is beyond your capability to demonstrate empirically one by one. If only one is sufficient,  the rest 999,999 statistical data is wasted in term of time and expenses of collecting them due to ignorance of empiricism.

Don't tell other people what their identifications are.  Someone who identifies as agender is identifying as neither male nor female (not partially male and partially female).  I don't think they have a need to become either male or female or anything in between, because their identity lies outside the concept of gender in the first place, and I don't think an agender person would take kindly to the suggestion that they can only be agender when they're sleeping or dead.

From behaviour it is easy to tell if a person has desire for gender or sex. The absence of desire is rare but possible due to abnormality, and does indicate gender neutrality, but again this is basing on standard gender binary as criteria for the definition of gender neutrality, in other words, you don't called something neutral if reality is absence of polerity.

Okay, now that I see where you're coming from in terms of spirituality, and from my knowledge of studies of Buddhism and empiricism, I'm starting to see where you're coming from.  The problem is that, if you're going to accept the validity of the individual experience, you can't invalidate someone else's individual experience, even if the way they publish those observations is in the form of data.

Unless they provide their rationale or method, then I'm afraid if it is not sound, I have no reason to accept it. One should not believe anything that is read, unless it is sound, such as basing on personal experience stating their conditions.

..Pardon?  I don't think my mind is seeking the gender polarity, whatever that means.

But your avatar clearly identify as MTF, and you claim of having no need for your mind to seek the female polarity?

It's difficult to have an argument regarding empiricism when you spontaneously decide you want to call something else entirely empiricism.

There is no exact similar of what is empiricism between scientific and philosophical approaches. Their perspective is different, what philosophy can accept in science, does not entails science can accept in philosophy. Buddhist philosophy fully acknowledge cause and effect components of scientific method, but it is also a field that is alien to science.

Uh, no, if I understand correctly (from the agender people I know!  Look, ma, empirical evidence!), agender is the lack of a gender identity.  Some agender people may not have any body dysphoria
at all.

The lack of gender identity indicate a gender identity in others, if there is no gender identity in others, the notion of the lack of gender identity cannot be established. Thus, the mere labelling of agender in this case confirm the world of gender. Existence is all about polerity opposite, even agender has its opposite which is gender.

"Binary" does not mean that there are two poles and a spectrum.  "Binary" means there are two options, one and zero, pink and blue, female and male.  That's why people identifying between the two poles want to break down the binary, because the binary prevents people from their right to self-identification wherever they want in the spectrum.

Thus your binary has no literal meaning, but a label with an interpreted meaning to prevents people from their right to self-identification. Why not just open up to its literal meaning, so that it can be logical mean standard traits of gender opposites, where standard gender and its variants can be distinguished, there is no preventing people from their right to self-identification here.

I don't see where you're pointing out logical inconsistencies, except in your own decision to define empiricism however you want so that it fits better with your own beliefs.  I'm perfectly fine with that; just be aware that there is an entire scientific community that will disagree with you on your use of the world "empirical" as incorrectly applied.

Your logical weakness is clearly demonstrate in your labeling the binary as the cause of preventing people from their right to self-identification, where in reality its literal meaning has no such implication. It is just the required parameters where gender and its variants can be determined.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

Now you guys are gonna probably hate on this comment.

But you still retain your former selves through transition. HRT basically covers a male skeleton with female fat distributions, FFS/SRS just enhance that image. But the outside is not always reflective of what is in inside.

Before transition...I was an bitchy, slutty, catty gay boy.
After  transition(HRT): I was a bitchy, slutty, catty girl.

Nothing actually changed. I'm still a troublemaker...I still see a lot of my relationships as expendable. But to my best friends, I only changed the outward appearance. I'm more comfortable right now, but my new "form" allows me to get away with more troublemaking.

You still retain your former selves. HRT and whatever else, it isn't gonna magically disappear. Thus, the essence of trans is duality... Even if the core is still the same.

clearly, the effects of hormones change depending on your genetics and age. i agree that i'm still the same individual, but in a new and right light.

[Mahsa Tezani]

clearly, the effects of hormones change depending on your genetics and age. i agree that i'm still the same individual, but in a new and right light.

Still the same person more or less biologically...

Hormones aren't magic and surgery isn't magic.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

I don't denial cause and effect component of science, it is this component that required empirical (real time) observation, but it is not about empiriciam which involved consciousness and time that is related to consciousness and mind. Such empiricism is field of philosophy. Gender is not hard science, it is field of socialogy and psychology, it is also of humanity which involved statistical survey to substantiate their studies. Gender biology is actual science, but not the psychological gender. So all discussion involving sensitivity of gender is of politics and cultural norms. Science has no such sensitivity. That said, sexuality is about binary dichotomy, it ultimately involved philosophy, its socialogy/humanity component is optional which is fine for politics but not science.

This is word salad again.  Gender can be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, sexually, yes, but also scientifically, and the biology of gender can also be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, and sexually.  That's the beauty of interdisciplinary study.

Also, sexuality is not about "binary dichotomy".  It's spectral in exactly the same way that gender and sex are spectral.

Exception is not the rule, being male share a similar biological mechanism with similar males, thus share a common biological response. If this is a gamble of yes or no (to sharing a common biological response), then the odd of being positive is too high. The same apply to male and female consciousness, male and male as well as female and female shared a common impetus and traits.

And yet you're assuming that you are the rule and everyone else is the exception.  Also, you still haven't even defined "male and female consciousness", and you're making a big assumption suggesting those are even a thing.

This is simple logic in determining odds.

Why falsify when the premise is being biologically healthy and that psychological it is in concordance with the biological impetus? If you falsify it, then the premise is false, that would defeat the logical statement. The premise states a condition for it to be true. I can also make a premise that say that I'm psychologically in discordance with the biological impetus,  and that I have an experience of feminine sexual response, with the aid of the male biological sexual mechanism which enhance the desire for sex, this would equally apply to number of males who share similar discordance, and be true as long as the premise or condition applied.

I would suggest learning what falsifiability is before you throw out the concept as unnecessary.  Falsifiability is a pretty darn important concept in science.

This is just question of trust, but has nothing to do with the capacity for the claim to be true, since all conditions are available subjectively. If you want to argue the problem of trust, then you should not involved in a discussion, as it demand too much work for someone who is merely interested in sharing a knowledge, not working on a job for you. That is, I'm not getting paid to get you to become convinced. In an intellectual discussion, even the question of trust don't exist, since both parties merely interested in logical consistency, i.e. if a statement is logical true, why it has to concern you whether the person just make it up? It's aim could be just educational.

Yet you seem to distrust the observations of scientists.  Whence the hypocrisy?

Concerning empirical standard, it is not there because of the need to prove to another, but it is a method for oneself to verify a truth concerning perception, i.e. in this case of gender. Science do that because of the need to substantial the cause and effect component in real time. Empirical truth is itself the basis of rationality, so I also demand a rationale basis for any opposing views. In other word, I'm able to show my rationale for the claim as basing on empirical standard despite being subjective and personal, but what it is the rationale of those opposing it?

Empiricism and rationalism are in opposition.  Whoopsy-daisy.

In similar conditions (both biologically and psychologically), the experience would be similar, the minor difference can then be ignored, and the result taken as prove of universal similarity. It is all about causes and conditions, no one gender variant is so unique that there is no universal explanation for it, such as agender and so on, as even this term it is not absolute exist as such,  it is just a suitable labeling, the trait of gender binary can still be trace. Biologically there is really no such thing as agender, since the body by default is female, it is due to healthy development in the direction of male, that maleness is determined. As for psychological gender, it depends on the mental factors, the degree of desire to be of either gender, however minimum, there will always be a degree that can be determine, unless the person is unconsciousness, death or mentally handicapped. Even the wishes to be agender psychologically exist, such as monks and nuns who only interested in the passionless lifestyle, even though biologically they do have gender distinctions (thus being called nun and monk respectively), however this agender is simply the result of having both gender distinction neutralized, in other words, without the gender binary, then this state of agender does not exist (note the 'a' in agender still dependence on 'gender'). The neutralization of gender is clearly the neutralization of desire, this is what monkhood attempting to communicates in their outward appearance. For normal person with healthy desire not being restrained artificially, there is no such thing as no desire to be male or female.

I'm not talking about sexual dimorphism and development.  Agender is a valid identity, and it's erasure to suggest otherwise.

I'm refering to 'gender science' which should more accurately be called gender psychology, it is not hard science but under socialogy / humanity.

And psychology, as a social science, also...relies on empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world.

They don't apply to you in the form of words, but apply to your own empirical mode basing on those words as guidelines. In other words, only in a subjective state, not in objective form of data.

This is what empiricism mean. You don't need 1,000,000 statistical data, as they all useless to you, since it is beyond your capability to demonstrate empirically one by one. If only one is sufficient,  the rest 999,999 statistical data is wasted in term of time and expenses of collecting them due to ignorance of empiricism.

That doesn't mean you can claim your experiences to be universally valid, nor do they automatically invalidate the experiences of others.

From behaviour it is easy to tell if a person has desire for gender or sex. The absence of desire is rare but possible due to abnormality, and does indicate gender neutrality, but again this is basing on standard gender binary as criteria for the definition of gender neutrality, in other words, you don't called something neutral if reality is absence of polerity.

And now you're calling asexuals "abnormal" and also "gender neutral" (which is not necessarily true at all).

Also, there is /no/ /such/ /thing/ as gender neutrality in a gender binary system.

Unless they provide their rationale or method, then I'm afraid if it is not sound, I have no reason to accept it. One should not believe anything that is read, unless it is sound, such as basing on personal experience stating their conditions.

So...you're arguing from a rational perspective (which is not empirically sound), and thus I have no reason to accept it.

But your avatar clearly identify as MTF, and you claim of having no need for your mind to seek the female polarity?

I don't identify as "MTF" because that term is loaded with meaning that I don't want to convey.  I was assigned male at birth, which doesn't mean I was ever male in any respect.  When provided a chance to express self-identity, "male" was never an identity I used, so "male to female" is an erroneous way to classify me.  Even "trans*", "trans", "transsexual" and "transgender" are not aspects of my identity but simple historical facts.  I am only trans in the context of someone asking me whether I am trans or cis; that doesn't mean I identify as trans, as MtF, or as anything beyond female.

That said, just because I'm female doesn't mean that I want polarity.  I want to be able to express my (mostly female) gender identity (which is separate from my female sexual identity) however I want.

There is no exact similar of what is empiricism between scientific and philosophical approaches. Their perspective is different, what philosophy can accept in science, does not entails science can accept in philosophy. Buddhist philosophy fully acknowledge cause and effect components of scientific method, but it is also a field that is alien to science.

The lack of gender identity indicate a gender identity in others, if there is no gender identity in others, the notion of the lack of gender identity cannot be established. Thus, the mere labelling of agender in this case confirm the world of gender. Existence is all about polerity opposite, even agender has its opposite which is gender.

I'm not saying that gender doesn't exist.  I'm saying that some people can have no gender, and stressing the existence of the gender binary is erasure of those people.

Thus your binary has no literal meaning, but a label with an interpreted meaning to prevents people from their right to self-identification. Why not just open up to its literal meaning, so that it can be logical mean standard traits of gender opposites, where standard gender and its variants can be distinguished, there is no preventing people from their right to self-identification here.

Your logical weakness is clearly demonstrate in your labeling the binary as the cause of preventing people from their right to self-identification, where in reality its literal meaning has no such implication. It is just the required parameters where gender and its variants can be determined.

"My binary" has no literal meaning because I don't believe in binaristic constructions of gender and sexuality.  You can identify at a pole of the spectrum, which is fundamentally equivalent to identifying at a pole of the binary.  However, when you stress the existence of the binary, that means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify.  That is why binaristic constructions of gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression prevent people from self-identifying.

[Joeyboo~ :3]

I'm calling the 300th post.

Just saying, no one better touch that shhhi.

[Sailor_Saturn]

Any way to contest an inappropriately given negative to your rep? Jacelyn slapped me with a negative one for telling her she's a troll. Or, as she put it:

"Falsely labeling other without right cause"

I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

I'm calling the 300th post.

Just saying, no one better touch that shhhi.

this will probably be turned into a sticky.

[Mahsa Tezani]

I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.

I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.

[Morrigan]

Any way to contest an inappropriately given negative to your rep? Jacelyn slapped me with a negative one for telling her she's a troll. Or, as she put it:

"Falsely labeling other without right cause"

I guess it doesn't matter in the long run, but getting a negative to my rep for no good reason just pisses me off. Meh. It's still a 6/1 ratio as of this writing. You're a troll, Jacelyn. I'll say it as many times as I damned well please, because it's TRUE. Get back under your bridge.

I received one as well, merely for agreeing with you. This is getting out of hand.

I am gonna be the first to defend Jacelyn... her points are well researched and she makes good points. It may not be what you want to hear...But that's how life is outside of the transcommunity.

If well researched, the sources are not credible. If that logic was to be the norm again, we would be thrust back into the dark ages of segregation. It's offensive and TOS violating material.

[Mahsa Tezani]

If well researched, the sources are not credible. If that logic was to be the norm again, we would be thrust back into the dark ages of segregation. It's offensive and TOS violating material.

Yeah, isn't part of being supportive also being honest with yourself? I think if anything her ideals are preparing people here for the larger picture. This may be a support board...But I'd rather keep my mouth closed than lie to people.

Sorry she's not saying what you want to hear. But that's life... Furthermore, we have many different kinds of idealogies in the community.

[Morrigan]

Mahsa I fail to understand why you would support someone who attacks others' credibility
while feeding us "Word Salad Philosophy". If you can make sense of the numerous unrelated
ramblings and sum it all up, I would actually appreciate it.

[Jacelyn]

This is word salad again.  Gender can be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, sexually, yes, but also scientifically, and the biology of gender can also be explored politically, psychologically, culturally, and sexually.  That's the beauty of interdisciplinary study.

Also, sexuality is not about "binary dichotomy".  It's spectral in exactly the same way that gender and sex are spectral.
.

As mentioned the present 'scientific method' of exploring gender is mere statistical survey to aim for objective data, and I already mentioned the significance of empiricism over objective data. They have no mean to measure gender perception empirically, as it involved element of consciousness which is beyond the grasp of present scientific method.

Binary dichotomy exists in everything, it is basic mechanism of existence, the binding of atomic mass of matter, including the operation of computer and our thought processes. The spectral is based on the binary as variant. By deciphering the spectral, only the binary mechanism is found.

And yet you're assuming that you are the rule and everyone else is the exception.  Also, you still haven't even defined "male and female consciousness", and you're making a big assumption suggesting those are even a thing.

The rule has nothing to do with me, the law of nature is independent of the individual, but it make a different whether a person understands this law as it is, or is confusing political concept as this nature law. As for consciousness, the male consciousness has a image of himself as the male form, and associate behaviours and emotional pattern specific to this male form, whereas the female consciousness has a image of herself as the female form, and associate behaviours and emotional pattern specific to this female form. Thus the gender consciousness involved a mental form of the gender physical characteristics as well as the behaviours and emotional pattern.

I would suggest learning what falsifiability is before you throw out the concept as unnecessary.  Falsifiability is a pretty darn important concept in science.

Science does not resolved the gender question definitively,  and that skepism is the very basis of science, here you just bring in the element of science that does not help this gender issue, and one that have me preferred the philosophical approach. So you can argue such scientific definition, but it doesn't apply well to the objective here.

Yet you seem to distrust the observations of scientists.  Whence the hypocrisy?

I trust science in field of medicine and engineering only, on issue of gender I avoid the opinion of sociologiest and humanists. But I could accept any philosophical view if they are reasonable, I don't need to know whether it is just a sound theoritical example, or an actual empirical fact, since I would be able to demonstrate that rationale and confirm its usefulness subjectively.

Empiricism and rationalism are in opposition.  Whoopsy-daisy.

No, a rationale that is based empirically does not oppose each other, but mutually supportive. An example is an empirical rationale in form of words, can become an empirical evidence in anyone subjective experience, and that the empirically manifested evidence is in support of this empirical rational in form of words.

I'm not talking about sexual dimorphism and development.  Agender is a valid identity, and it's erasure to suggest otherwise.

I'm not saying there is no variation of gender in spectral diversity, but that the labeling of agender to a variation of gender is not a precise determination of their gender condition. It is fine if the subject accept such labeling, but not to one who oppose it. And the labeling is not precise, any number of variation, including monks, nuns, could be included under the agender umbralla, hence falsely established as agender absolutely, where in reality their body is still possessing the gender characteristic (only the outside appearance look agender). If there is no such agender labeling, then the problem of precision will not arise.

And psychology, as a social science, also...relies on empirically affirmed data that comes from recordings, observations, and experiments about the natural world.

These techniques will always biased at mass data over individual, selective opinions. And demonstrate the lack of confidence in such technique itself. Perception / consciousness is a field of philosophy, not science. The adepts of philosophy become advance meditators themseves and observe their own mind in order understand themselves and reality, they don't need to go out and ask anyone in the street about personal details.

That doesn't mean you can claim your experiences to be universally valid, nor do they automatically invalidate the experiences of others.

As the element of consciousness is like the element of earth, water, air, fire and wind, they constitutes the elements of our existence, these elements are universal, they are the same in whoever perceived them. That is, no matter who in the world perceive this consciousness, it is the same consciousness that is perceived by oneself subjectively. This being subjective is also universal when one is involving these universal elements. The same with any hard science, when one confirmed matter behave in certain manner due to certain causes, even thought only one individual knows, but the knowledge is universal, because cause and effect is a universal principle. Thus, in my gender theory, it very much involved the universal element of consciousness, as well as the universal principle of causes and effects. That is, if the causes enable me to perceive a reaction in feelings in consciousness, I'm of certainty that the same causes will produce the same reaction in anyone in their consciousness. On the other hand, if someone give me a rationale which by my subjective experience failed to yield the result of the stated claims, then I know the rationale is invalid.

And now you're calling asexuals "abnormal" and also "gender neutral" (which is not necessarily true at all).
Also, there is /no/ /such/ /thing/ as gender neutrality in a gender binary system.

Gender variants are abnormal because the variants cause dishormony with society where the majority is of standard binary characteristics. Normal people have difficulty determine their gender in order to understand them.

Again gender neutrality is a term dependence on the fact of gender binary. The same with urgliness and beauty, if this binary does not exist, then there is no such thing as average looking, because there is no reference to what is common and uncommon (pretty or urgly). Thus, whenever we involved a middle, that is due to those binary polerity exists. This apply to thoughts, as well as the appearances of phenomenas. In other words, the binary dichotomy is the building blocks of diversity of existence.

So...you're arguing from a rational perspective (which is not empirically sound), and thus I have no reason to accept it.

Again a distorted reasoning. The soundness of a rational perspective is dependence on its empiricism, one can't determine rationally whether a reasoning is sound, unless prior empirical experience relative to the reasoning can be recall. In normal situation, not a lot of claim in various reasoning can't be recall in oneself to determine their soundness or unsoundness.

I don't identify as "MTF" because that term is loaded with meaning that I don't want to convey.  I was assigned male at birth, which doesn't mean I was ever male in any respect.  When provided a chance to express self-identity, "male" was never an identity I used, so "male to female" is an erroneous way to classify me.  Even "trans*", "trans", "transsexual" and "transgender" are not aspects of my identity but simple historical facts.  I am only trans in the context of someone asking me whether I am trans or cis; that doesn't mean I identify as trans, as MtF, or as anything beyond female.That said, just because I'm female doesn't mean that I want polarity.  I want to be able to express my (mostly female) gender identity (which is separate from my female sexual identity) however I want.

There is no female in a TG forum or group, as people associate with these group automatically implied they are not of cis gender. The outside world is better place to pretend to be female, and even I won't addressed you as MTF in the outside world. Thus within the TG forum there is no need to be afraid of label if it apply to you technically as there is no discrimation. When you desire to become female, you are desiring the feminine polarity of gender, but it seems you are confusing about this.

I'm not saying that gender doesn't exist.  I'm saying that some people can have no gender, and stressing the existence of the gender binary is erasure of those people.

As mentioned if there is a concept of no gender, that is due to having the concept of gender, one cannot reach an opposite polarity of a concept without having first perceiving the original concept. A person can mentally and psychological against the concept of gender and aimed for agender, but this concept is unreachable if the original gender concept does not exist.

"My binary" has no literal meaning because I don't believe in binaristic constructions of gender and sexuality.  You can identify at a pole of the spectrum, which is fundamentally equivalent to identifying at a pole of the binary.  However, when you stress the existence of the binary, that means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify.  That is why binaristic constructions of gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression prevent people from self-identifying.

No, stressing the existence of the binary, does not means everyone who doesn't identify strictly as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, is denied an opportunity to self-identify., because there is no rationale for this. As the existence of the binary is a fact, stressing a fact does not negate the existence of gender diversity, nor limiting people their opportunity to self-identify, since the gender diversity is confirmed and established by the binary principle. You are stating an invalid rationale to quantify your opposing stances against the 'binary' labeling, you also admit it is not literal in meaning but of interpreted meaning, then you show yourself of having an agenda, possibly a political one.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

Jacelyn, you keep using these words and their related forms: gender, binary, sexuality, dichotomy, spectrum, science, philosophy, objective, subjective, opinion, fact, data, variant, polarity, empiricism, rationalism, male, female.

I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

There is no female in a TG forum or group, as people associate with these group automatically implied they are not of cis gender. The outside world is better place to pretend to be female, and even I won't addressed you as MTF in the outside world. Thus within the TG forum there is no need to be afraid of label if it apply to you technically as there is no discrimation. When you desire to become female, you are desiring the feminine polarity of gender, but it seems you are confusing about this.

While the rest of this has moved towards literally incomprehensible rote, blind repetition of your beliefs on concepts of which you clearly don't have a firm grasp, and I'm going to allow you to read about them before actually responding to anything anymore, I will address this because it's specifically addressed to me.

I am female.  I am not pretending to be female.  I don't desire to become female, and I'm hardly confused as to where I stand on the gender spectrum.  I also do not identify with the terms "MtF", "trans*", "transgender", or "transsexual".  I don't identify with these not because I'm "afraid of labels" (though I do find labels to be limiting in some fashions, in others they're useful, and I will, for example, readily identify with the labels "female" and "dyke").  I don't identify with those terms because they are not a part of my identity.  Trans* is a fact or condition describing my body, just like "diabetic" might describe someone else's body.  It is not a term I use when defining my identity.

I'm not scared to be trans*.  I am trans*.  But that doesn't mean that trans* is me.  I'm not only "so much more than a condition affecting my body", I'm not at all a condition affecting my body.

[Joeyboo~ :3]

300TH POST AWH YEAH.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

300TH POST AWH YEAH.

Somebody was ready for that.