Do you think people would accept you more if you were straight or gay/lesbian?

[EmmaS]

Well your brain doesn't tell you what to think when it comes to your sex/gender. That's all up to how you feel which isn't totally dependent on your brain. The brain has a bit to do with it, but more or less when someone tells you that they are a woman trapped in a man's body, they don't say it was their brain that told them. They normally say deep in their hearts/soul is where the feeling came from.

Hmm, I'm mixed with this because I feel as if I have a female brain and a male body and so I need to change my body to match that, but I see your point of using your heart as well, but not sure what that would be considered "technically".

[Imreallyconfused]

Hmm, I'm mixed with this because I feel as if I have a female brain and a male body and so I need to change my body to match that, but I see your point of using your heart as well, but not sure what that would be considered "technically".

Eh I thought I stopped using technically. Bleh, I used it a lot when I was younger because I used to be a competitive arguer so that was more or less used a a break in thought to move to another subject, but within the same theme. Been trying to stop using it because it's misleading.

A "soul" does not exist and a heart pumps blood in your body

I believe the soul exists and the heart isn't only good for pumping blood.

[Nicolette]

I believe the soul exists and the heart isn't only good for pumping blood.

Now we're simply talking metaphors. Genes + environment = you/soul. Otherwise we start introducing the supernatural component to define sexuality and gender.

[EmmaS]

Well I just wonder what heartbreak actually is, because it's much more intense than just emotional pain in my opinion. Is it just that? Intensified emotional pain?

[Imreallyconfused]

Well I just wonder what heartbreak actually is, because it's much more intense than just emotional pain in my opinion. Is it just that? Intensified emotional pain?

That's what I define as having a soul. Without a soul, we are emotionless creatures with no morality. When you have a broken heart, sometimes, but not always ( I am one of them) my chest hurts right where my heart is.

[EmmaS]

I don't consider emotions part of a soul, but that's my opinion.

[Tristan]

sounds like we need to all go out and have some fun and put some of these theories to the test over happy hour 

[A]

I have no idea. It's a very hard question.

If you're homosexual, people just have to accept that you're not a closeted gay or anything like that.

If you're heterosexual, people are more likely to think of you as a "real girl" and understand you, because "normal girls" are into men, and most women you come out to are and can relate.

A lot of people seem to think a lesbian is a woman who has a somewhat masculine core, somehow, so it might make you less "valid" in their eyes. "Okay, you've got a lot of woman, but see? A lot of guy too, since you're into girls!"

They might also think you're a pervert for being into women and wanting to be a woman; something like the  ->-bleeped-<- theory.

Both have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to acceptance. Very hard to pick one.

Though I think being asexual is the best in that regard, because people will think "obviously, something is wrong", and can't think you're a pervert.

What I have, "undetermined, unsure sexual orientation" isn't as good, because then, people might think that confused with sexual orientation = confused with sexual identity = this might all be a mistake.

[Imreallyconfused]

Well after much contemplation and looking into my past years, I know it's not a mistake cause I've been living it in secret for the better part of 24 years. I am a woman, therefore unless I am outlandishly crazy and would stay looking like this, I want to look as I feel. Womanly and curvy. I feel so attached to my womanly self that I can't function sexually as a man with a woman. It's literally impossible. It no longer feels nice anymore because I want to be on the receiving end, not the giving.

[Sybil]

On the note of sexuality/gender being natural vs. environmental:

I can completely understand that neither has been scientifically proven, as none of the available data can be definitively tethered to something scientific. However, I think it's nearing absurdity to believe that either sexuality or gender identity is anything but natural or genetic (please note I am not saying that there aren't individuals who make the choice against their inclinations, though I believe them to be rare). There are countless examples spanning the entirety of our species' existence that reflect the reality of homosexuality or gender incongruence. It's a static occurrence in every single culture to have ever existed, many times being against the individual's well-being; the evidence to this much is overwhelming.

It is true that there is cultural magnetism to certain habits, but these are very obviously either defined by a society's growth towards comfort (such as with the Greeks, who were not necessarily sexually attracted to the same gender, but saw nothing wrong with providing each other gratification), or by an individual's natural inclination to establish preferences (fetishes, hair color preferences, body preferences, etc.) within their own pre-existing sexual basis, i.e. women, men or both. This same determination occurs for gender expression: an individual has an established identity and their expression of that identity is a reflection of their growth. Of course exposure to one's environment will help shape an individual's growth, as we can only experience what we are exposed to, but it will not define (or redefine) their basis.

If nothing else, I feel the biology view just bleeds both common sense and good will. I am admittedly embarrassed for our species that we cling to dismissive, grasping arguments despite our history screaming otherwise at us.

[EmmaS]

I am admittedly embarrassed for our species that we cling to dismissive, grasping arguments despite our history screaming otherwise at us.

If it was so blatantly obvious, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, from your message I would guess you have no interest in having an open mind.

[Sybil]

If it was so blatantly obvious, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, from your message I would guess you have no interest in having an open mind.

Very nice. That would be the fallacies of confusing cause and effect as well as poisoning the well.

I think people who adamantly try to make the environment argument are the ones who lack an open mind (see below). Also, my message opened by indeed having an open mind: I admitted that there is no scientific evidence fully supporting either argument, and by virtue admitted that they are just that: arguments.

My "message" was nothing but that humanity has a very long and very indulged history of having homosexual and gender incongruent people in it. They have existed, without bias, across all of the environments that we have engineered. That is a very powerful constant that says a great deal for genetics. It really speaks volumes for genetics in terms of probability, which is the most unbiased information available.

I feel that people who chase the environment argument are out to hurt or quell people like us. I can't help but feel that the logical thing to do would be to treat us in a humanitarian fashion and assume that we are valid until proven otherwise. What we are and do is harmless, and without science to disprove our biology, believing the environmental view only really serves the purpose of disbelieving in us, and I doubt that I have to explain the repercussions of that to anyone reading this thread. I'm sorry if my distaste for that bothers you, but at least I can admit as much and that I understand my belief is not proven, either. Which I did before you addressed me.

Finally: if human beings were so inclined to follow the obvious, then the world would be a very different place.

[Imreallyconfused]

Finally: if human beings were so inclined to follow the obvious, then the world would be a very different place.

Well that is a wish that unfortunately, unless people use their heads, will never happen. People are bred to think a certain way. If people were born not to think a certain way and find out for themselves the ways of life, yes indeed this would would be a lot different.

[EmmaS]

Very nice. That would be the fallacies of confusing cause and effect as well as poisoning the well.

I think people who adamantly try to make the environment argument are the ones who lack an open mind (see below). Also, my message opened by indeed having an open mind: I admitted that there is no scientific evidence fully supporting either argument, and by virtue admitted that they are just that: arguments.

My "message" was nothing but that humanity has a very long and very indulged history of having homosexual and gender incongruent people in it. They have existed, without bias, across all of the environments that we have engineered. That is a very powerful constant that says a great deal for genetics. It really speaks volumes for genetics in terms of probability, which is the most unbiased information available.

I feel that people who chase the environment argument are out to hurt or quell people like us. I can't help but feel that the logical thing to do would be to treat us in a humanitarian fashion and assume that we are valid until proven otherwise. What we are and do is harmless, and without science to disprove our biology, believing the environmental view only really serves the purpose of disbelieving in us, and I doubt that I have to explain the repercussions of that to anyone reading this thread. I'm sorry if my distaste for that bothers you, but at least I can admit as much and that I understand my belief is not proven, either. Which I did before you addressed me.

Finally: if human beings were so inclined to follow the obvious, then the world would be a very different place.

You're not making any points that change anything, but I guess since you think you're smarter than everyone else then you must be right! I'm wasting my time talking to someone who is condescending and far too cynical to have a rational argument without insulting others for their beliefs. By saying one who believes in a particular view is close minded is contradicting the very thing you are arguing for. If I told you that the essentialist/biological view was nonsensical and anyone who believed in it was an oblivious idiot then you would call me close minded, but that's exactly what you did.

[Alainaluvsu]

I think people have an easier time with it if you're straight. IDK why... I just do. I'm glad I'm not a lesbian... I wonder if cis women are a little more guarded around lesbians... especially trans lesbians.

But I think it's harder to find a relationship as a straight trans girl than it is a lesbian. Men seem to worry about if they're going to get seen as "gay" if someone finds out. Sex has to be easier to get for us straight girls though... I could probably get laid any time I want now =/

[Nero]

As to the nature/nurture debate on sexuality: honestly, there's such a huge political investment in believing it's biological. I'm pretty sure I wasn't 'born' wanting sex with men. 'Rooster' is an acquired taste for me. Which doesn't make it any less real or changeable.

[Sybil]

You're not making any points that change anything, but I guess since you think you're smarter than everyone else then you must be right! I'm wasting my time talking to someone who is condescending and far too cynical to have a rational argument without insulting others for their beliefs. By saying one who believes in a particular view is close minded is contradicting the very thing you are arguing for. If I told you that the essentialist/biological view was nonsensical and anyone who believed in it was an oblivious idiot then you would call me close minded, but that's exactly what you did.

Good grief. Do some reading: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

All you're doing here is putting words in my mouth and attacking my character. You're going so far as to fabricate my perceptions for me. Smearing buzz words all over me and then painting straw mans does not make your accusations valid (neither does it reflect the conversational chastity you purport to encourage).

I provided reasons for the way I felt that I did. You're skirting around what I said and trying to attack me because my post rubbed you the wrong way - i.e. you don't like that I have a low tolerance for a view that I feel is hurtful to people who already have it bad. Is it because you defended the right to that belief in this thread? I didn't attack you or anyone else here personally -- but if you take it personally because I feel a given belief is extremely hurtful, there's no way I'm apologizing for that! If you think that means I believe I'm some super genius who trounces everyone, then so be it: please forgive my wrong-doing humanitarianism that is just profoundly dripping with hubris and so telling of my overall character.

Your core argument against me is flawed: closed-mindedness comes exactly from subscribing to certain beliefs. You're trying to create a loophole to attack me and at the same time find exemption yourself from the loophole, then go on to construct insults to exaggerate what I have said. Just because you can believe in something, it doesn't mean it's healthy or productive.

What did I say? I said that the environmental belief "nears absurdity" and that I am ashamed people "adamantly believe" and "cling to" that belief when all it does is hurt people. I said nothing of anyone who regards it as a possibility, as I myself admitted to there being no proof to the contrary. I explicitly stated I had an issue with the choice to believe that theory despite there being no evidence for it, and the opposing theory being both more readily benevolent and believable given history. I didn't even mention the overall integrity of those people, merely my distaste for believing in that specific theory itself.

If you have so much of an issue with it (or me) that you have to literally make up things to attack me with, at least argue why I shouldn't feel the way I do instead of simply telling me I'm "not making any points that change anything," that I think I'm smarter than everyone, and fortune telling aspects of my character because of how you chose to read my post. Attacking someone's character (even if they ARE terrible!) does not refute anything they say.

[~RoadToTrista~]

You two shouldn't attack eachother. This is suppose to be a happy happy support site.

[Sybil]

As to the nature/nurture debate on sexuality: honestly, there's such a huge political investment in believing it's biological. I'm pretty sure I wasn't 'born' wanting sex with men. 'Rooster' is an acquired taste for me. Which doesn't make it any less real or changeable.

I'm really curious: what's "rooster"?

I can definitely understand the political investment: it's easier to make people put their animosity down by telling them it's "natural." As for being born wanting sex with a given gender, I'm pretty sure I was born to eventually develop a desire for men. I'm also open to women if the right one comes along, but it's not something I ever find myself looking for or wanting. I like to remain open, though, as I never know -- that much was a development for sure.

Edit to avoid post clutter:

You two shouldn't attack eachother. This is suppose to be a happy happy support site.

I feel much more like I'm defending than attacking, but I would definitely rather be doing neither. I think attacking an opinion is fine (that's the nature of debate), but not a person.

[EmmaS]

You two shouldn't attack eachother. This is suppose to be a happy happy support site.

I haven't attacked anyone; all I did was defend what I have been saying while someone else has been insulting me for no reason at all. I do think Sybil isn't a very nice person; it's nothing against them, but they were rude and not civil. I have nothing else to say to someone who is only good at condescending others.