Susan's Place Transgender Resources

so, I have some questions and am trying to gain a better understanding of some things regarding sex and gender.
we all know that sex and gender and completly different terms.......
gender is loosely defned as a variety of characteristics to distinguish between male and female......gender roles, appearance, mannerisms, etc etc so forth and so on.
sex is loosely defined by a species ability to reproduce and by which gametes are produced by that species, ovum (eggs) or sperm, or in some cases, both are produced.  in the absence of the those gametes being produced, sex is loosely defined as the genitalia, either a vagina or a penis..(in most animalia)

if someone claims a gender of female based on their characteristics, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly, their gender is female.......

where I have trouble understanding and comprehending is how can one claim a certain "sex" status when their genitalia is opposite the sex they are claiming and in some cases, have no interest in having the genitalia of the sex they are claiming.  can someone, anyone, help me at all in understanding this concept?

I (and many others) have been beat to hell and back, I have not misgendered anyone (as expressed in some smites), I am not transphobic.......I am simply trying to understand something that I currently do not understand......can anyone help with this?

I'm just going to copy/paste this from the last thread on this subject, cause I am bored of trying to say the same thing in different ways.


Definition of sex from Canadian Oxford:
   

Quote1 either of the main divisions (male and female) into which living things are placed on the basis of their reproductive functions.

We no longer use that definition. Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago. It was a term used to express REPRODUCTIVE function. The end. In the strict sense a post-operative woman is neuter, not female. So is every impotent bloke and every woman post-menopause. And since the term is not used in its original biological definition, this means that sex is a social category.

Let me give an example. A male soldier steps on a landmine in Afghanistan, he suffers that injury that all blokes are terrified of. However, he is still male. He does not suddenly cease to be male due to the lack of a penis. His IDs remain unchanged, his pronouns, everything stays exactly as it was. He is a disabled guy, but he is still a guy.

Or to put it another way, if you cut a guy's dick off, he doesn't become female, and neither will I.

I do not identify as MTF. I am a female who was born with a birth defect. I am correcting that defect. In less than 6 months my birth certificate will be altered to indicate that I was born female. I have zero interest in labelling anyone who is not me.

Efforts to rewrite the definition of sex to fit a specific agenda are exactly that. Rewriting. Don't imagine there is any actual basis for the crotch-definition.

I acknowledge that sex and gender are different (but interrelated) concepts. However, I think that because the cisgendered majority views gender and sex as the same thing, a transwoman who doesn't choose to have SRS can and should "check the F box" on legal documents, Facebook, etc. to better assimilate into their new gender role.

Quote from: Grave Robber 9 (from Outer Space) on October 27, 2011, 11:17:49 PM
I acknowledge that sex and gender are different (but interralted) concepts. However, I think that because the cisgendered majority views gender and sex as the same thing, a transwoman who doesn't choose to have SRS can and should "check the F box" on legal documents, Facebook, etc to better assimilate into their new gender role.

a major problem with that is those who become incarcerated, they are housed in cells based on their genitalia.....yes, it's an aweful thing.  I've seen programs where some are even on estrogen but housed in male units.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 27, 2011, 11:13:30 PM
I'm just going to copy/paste this from the last thread on this subject, cause I am bored of trying to say the same thing in different ways.


Definition of sex from Canadian Oxford:
   
We no longer use that definition. Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago. It was a term used to express REPRODUCTIVE function. The end. In the strict sense a post-operative woman is neuter, not female. So is every impotent bloke and every woman post-menopause. And since the term is not used in its original biological definition, this means that sex is a social category.

Let me give an example. A male soldier steps on a landmine in Afghanistan, he suffers that injury that all blokes are terrified of. However, he is still male. He does not suddenly cease to be male due to the lack of a penis. His IDs remain unchanged, his pronouns, everything stays exactly as it was. He is a disabled guy, but he is still a guy.

Or to put it another way, if you cut a guy's dick off, he doesn't become female, and neither will I.

I do not identify as MTF. I am a female who was born with a birth defect. I am correcting that defect. In less than 6 months my birth certificate will be altered to indicate that I was born female. I have zero interest in labelling anyone who is not me.

Efforts to rewrite the definition of sex to fit a specific agenda are exactly that. Rewriting. Don't imagine there is any actual basis for the crotch-definition.

I certainly respect your input, but, that definition of sex is not what is being taught in american universities and public schools....my undergrad degree is in bio and my post grad work is in bio

From the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/)

QuoteWhat do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women
Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

This isn't even touching the topic of how easily "sex" can be broken down, too. But it does lay out the common understanding of the two terms in their current usage in gender studies and medicine.

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 27, 2011, 11:27:59 PM
From the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/)

This isn't even touching the topic of how easily "sex" can be broken down, too. But it does lay out the common understanding of the two terms in their current usage in gender studies and medicine.

so, for example, somebody who identifies as female (in gender) but has male reproductive organs and genitalia (male)
which are they and which one is proper?
for example, somebody who identifies as female (gender) and chooses to have male reproductive organs removed and genitalia corrected to female..........which are they and which term (man or woman) is proper?
for example, somebody who identifies as female (gender) but chooses to keep male reproductive organs and genitalia, which are they and which term is more appropriate........and why?

It is only the mind that matters. If a person has a female brain, that person is female regardless of what their body looks like.

Some may wish to correct this imbalance, while others might choose to live with it. That doesn't change who they are inside.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 27, 2011, 11:22:24 PM
I certainly respect your input, but, that definition of sex is not what is being taught in american universities and public schools....my undergrad degree is in bio and my post grad work is in bio

Jamie, I'll direct you to a specific quote from the big block.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 27, 2011, 11:13:30 PM
Sex ceased to be a biological category for humans hundreds of years ago.

I'll go further and say that sex as a categorical classification hasn't held any relevance to humans beyond the single act of procreation (well, and fornication, too, but I'll get to that in a bit) ever since the construction of division by gender as a social model came into existence.  Biology is concerned with...well, exactly what it says on the label: things having to do with the study of life: namely, physiology and procreation.  Even then, we can talk all we want about species-typicality, müllerian and wolffian duct differentiation and their eventual roles in anatomical, chromosomal, and perhaps even identified sex (and remember that all of these exist along a spectrum, so it's not nearly as easy to assign all of these absolutes like "vagina/vulva = female, penis/scrotum = male"), but it simply doesn't have relevance in societal and cultural views on sex.

Now, about sex as a category by which people are defined.  When I'm having sex, I assume an identity based on the way I act during sex, my preferred roles during it, and my desires in sexual response.  Thus, my sexual identity (and, thus, sex) is female.  I could be sporting thirteen tiny multicolored penises erupting from random pores in the skin of my groin, and it would not change the fact that my identified (and since identification is the only category with social relevance, the rest follow) sex is female.

My gender identity isn't nearly as easy to pin down.  I don't feel that current social norms and expectations for men or women really accurately reflect me, and so, while there is certainly a strong aspect of me that finds a female gender identity easier to deal with (because of its harmony with my sexual identity), it's not entirely comfortable either.  This is part of the reason I'm so uncomfortable identifying as anything beyond "female" - that's my sexual identity, while the social markers of gender, "girl", "lady", or "woman" just don't sit well.

I'm not a big fan of the "female with a birth defect" argument, because the scientist in me does have to admit that yes, I was born physiologically and chromosomally under the classifications of a species-typical male and didn't seem to have a problem with that for at least some amount of time.  I can and will soon remedy the physiological-psychological disconnect, but the chromosomal one will always remain.  In the same way as an intersex person cannot cease to be intersex, I cannot ever stop being transsexual. 

That said, I don't identify as transsexual—it is a condition which I have, not an intrinsic component of my sexual or gender identity.  Let's put it this way: a diabetic woman need not self-identify as "diabetes", and so while I don't ever deny the fact that I'm trans, it's not a part of my identity in the same way as being trans is.

In the end, though, being trans doesn't change my sex or my gender.

The simple breakdown to make it a little easier to understand (and sadly, the WHO article breaks this guideline). For this, since we're in the MTF section, I'm going to use MTF examples where necessary (Sorry guys!):

Sex: Male/Female

Gender: Masculine/Feminine or "Man" / "Woman"

Transgender: Broadly speaking anyone whose gender identity(internal sense of self), gender expression(how one outwardly presents themselves), and biological sex are not or have not always been aligned. Cisgender, therefore is someone whose sex and gender are and have been in conventional alignment. This is the "umbrella" usage of the word transgender, since this can apply to crossdressers (gender identity masculine, gender expression feminine, biological sex male), non-transitioning transsexuals (gender identity feminine, gender expression masculine, biological sex male), transitioned transsexuals (gender identity feminine*, gender expression feminine*, biological sex female*), drag queens,  androgynes, genderqueers, and so on. We could also add an axis for sex identity that would be the biological analogue of gender identity, but this isn't a commonly referenced idea.

*Formerly masculine or male

Transsexual: Someone who has taken steps, or would if possible take steps to alter their biological sex. (Notice, this does not specify which steps.)

---------------------------------------------------

Now, when it comes to sex, this is where it gets a little trickier since the usefulness of distinguishing male from female depends upon what is being discussed. There's basically no hard line you can draw where someone won't end up on the wrong side of it, whether due to intersex conditions, genital reconstruction, accident or misfortune damaging reproductive organs, hormone imbalances, and so on.

Chromosomes: This is a common one since it determines, in large part, who is capable of producing viable gametes, and on paper determines physical characteristics. However, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between genotype and phenotype. What actually develops for an individual is influenced by many other factors. Also, it's disingenuous to declare this to be the sole determinant if a person has not themselves had a karyotype analysis done to determine if they are in fact who they claim to be. So this one is out. c.f. Klinefelter Syndrome

Genitals and gonads: Technically separate, but they are similar enough for our purposes. Sex organ development is largely influenced by prenatal and postnatal hormones, not chromosomes. An imbalance in utero can lead to ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes this can be ambiguous enough that doctors and parents are basically taking a 50/50 shot that they guessed right for their child's identity in the future. In the worst cases, surgery is performed early on to "correct" these children before they can either consent or dispute their assigned sex. c.f. Intersex

Hormones: Simple enough. They influence nearly everything about your sex differentiated characteristics, from mood to physical development. This is a wide spectrum with typical females producing significantly higher quantities of estrogens and males producing significantly higher qualities of androgens. But people are known to have widely varying levels even for their identified sex. c.f. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Secondary Sex Characteristics: These are largely influenced by hormones, but they play a large role in how others identify a person's sex on sight. (That's the motivation for HRT for many transsexuals) However, there are cross-sex characteristics that are fairly common in the sex not typically associated with them. c.f. Hirsutism (male-type hairiness in females), Gynecomastia (female-type breast growth in males)

---------------------------------

So, where does one draw the line that doesn't leave some folks on the wrong side? And if you notice, none of those disorders on that list were Gender Dysphoria. Not all of them even cause infertility, either.

The easiest and simplest answer is to allow people to identify themselves. At the scope of any decent scientific study or legal/bureaucratic process, self-identification should be sufficient for what is being tracked. If it is so sensitive that this is not sufficient, then it's probably more helpful to disregard sex entirely and focus on delineating populations by the specific characteristic under review: e.g. if you want to know the influence of testosterone on hair loss, instead of studying males vs females (and simply assuming all males have higher testosterone than all females), compare high testosterone subjects to low testosterone subjects. On the other hand, if the margin of error on the assumption that all males are higher than all females is acceptable, then self-identification should suffice. Trans people aren't common enough to skew a study that badly unless trans people specifically are the topic of study.

Similarly for medicine. I now have female characteristics AND male characteristics. Whether I check M or F doesn't matter nearly as much as what organs and chemical levels I have. Those are the details the doctor actually needs. Just because the assumption that male means penis + prostate is right in most instances, what happens when a female has a prostate? Or a male has ovaries? Those are organs that can develop cancer, so knowing about their presence or absence is much more relevant than simply an M or F and assuming.

So, even when it comes to biological sex, the water is pretty muddy when you get to so-called "edge cases." And before anyone gets on any soapboxes about who is too far outside the norm to worry about, remember that everyone posting on this forum is one of those edge cases, and raising awareness and proper use of language are meant to ensure that those of us out here on the edge aren't being pushed off.

Great points, and post as a whole, LifeInNeon, though I take issue with a few of the wordings.

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 28, 2011, 12:58:22 AM
non-transitioning transsexuals (gender identity feminine, gender expression masculine, biological sex male), transitioned transsexuals (gender identity feminine*, gender expression feminine*, biological sex female*)

I think you're conflating gender expression and gender presentation here (which is an easy mistake to make, to be fair).  Gender presentation is the gender as which the person intends to present to society, whereas gender expression is one's choice of gendered societal roles (that may or may not coincide with the gender presentation, especially in androgyne or neutrois individuals, for example).

Quote
Now, when it comes to sex, this is where it gets a little trickier since the usefulness of distinguishing male from female depends upon what is being discussed. There's basically no hard line you can draw where someone won't end up on the wrong side of it, whether due to intersex conditions, genital reconstruction, accident or misfortune damaging reproductive organs, hormone imbalances, and so on.

Chromosomes: This is a common one since it determines, in large part, who is capable of producing viable gametes, and on paper determines physical characteristics. However, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between genotype and phenotype. What actually develops for an individual is influenced by many other factors. Also, it's disingenuous to declare this to be the sole determinant if a person has not themselves had a karyotype analysis done to determine if they are in fact who they claim to be. So this one is out. c.f. Klinefelter Syndrome

Genitals and gonads: Technically separate, but they are similar enough for our purposes. Sex organ development is largely influenced by prenatal and postnatal hormones, not chromosomes. An imbalance in utero can lead to ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes this can be ambiguous enough that doctors and parents are basically taking a 50/50 shot that they guessed right for their child's identity in the future. In the worst cases, surgery is performed early on to "correct" these children before they can either consent or dispute their assigned sex. c.f. Intersex

Hormones: Simple enough. They influence nearly everything about your sex differentiated characteristics, from mood to physical development. This is a wide spectrum with typical females producing significantly higher quantities of estrogens and males producing significantly higher qualities of androgens. But people are known to have widely varying levels even for their identified sex. c.f. Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Secondary Sex Characteristics: These are largely influenced by hormones, but they play a large role in how others identify a person's sex on sight. (That's the motivation for HRT for many transsexuals) However, there are cross-sex characteristics that are fairly common in the sex not typically associated with them. c.f. Hirsutism (male-type hairiness in females), Gynecomastia (female-type breast growth in males)

This is a really good summary.

Quote
So, where does one draw the line that doesn't leave some folks on the wrong side? And if you notice, none of those disorders on that list were Gender Dysphoria. Not all of them even cause infertility, either.

The easiest and simplest answer is to allow people to identify themselves. At the scope of any decent scientific study or legal/bureaucratic process, self-identification should be sufficient for what is being tracked. If it is so sensitive that this is not sufficient, then it's probably more helpful to disregard sex entirely and focus on delineating populations by the specific characteristic under review: e.g. if you want to know the influence of testosterone on hair loss, instead of studying males vs females (and simply assuming all males have higher testosterone than all females), compare high testosterone subjects to low testosterone subjects. On the other hand, if the margin of error on the assumption that all males are higher than all females is acceptable, then self-identification should suffice. Trans people aren't common enough to skew a study that badly unless trans people specifically are the topic of study.

Similarly for medicine. I now have female characteristics AND male characteristics. Whether I check M or F doesn't matter nearly as much as what organs and chemical levels I have. Those are the details the doctor actually needs. Just because the assumption that male means penis + prostate is right in most instances, what happens when a female has a prostate? Or a male has ovaries? Those are organs that can develop cancer, so knowing about their presence or absence is much more relevant than simply an M or F and assuming.

So, even when it comes to biological sex, the water is pretty muddy when you get to so-called "edge cases." And before anyone gets on any soapboxes about who is too far outside the norm to worry about, remember that everyone posting on this forum is one of those edge cases, and raising awareness and proper use of language are meant to ensure that those of us out here on the edge aren't being pushed off.

I continue to be an advocate of self-identification as well (in addition to advocating the removal of legal sex from all documents, because why should it matter?).

Quick note, though.  If you've been on HRT long enough, your prostate shrivels to near-nothingness, such that prostate cancer is not a practical concern for trans women, if I recall correctly.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:16:34 AM
I think you're conflating gender expression and gender presentation here (which is an easy mistake to make, to be fair).  Gender presentation is the gender as which the person intends to present to society, whereas gender expression is one's choice of gendered societal roles (that may or may not coincide with the gender presentation, especially in androgyne or neutrois individuals, for example).

Trying as hard as I can to keep it Queer Theory 101 level. :P

But thank you. :)

Quote from: LifeInNeon on October 28, 2011, 01:20:41 AM
Trying as hard as I can to keep it Queer Theory 101 level. :P

Hahaha.  I'm a walking Gender Studies Department!

(Embarrassingly, I'm not taking my first GenSex course until next semester.  I've read metric tons of material, though.)

so you're saying that we should just ignore the genitals and sex completely?  how do you solve that when it comes to lockerrooms, possibly when an inpatient and having to share a room, if convicted and incarcerated?
would it be fair to someone with a vagina to be housed with someone with a penis, where possibly a crime could be committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal?

not to mention sporting activies......would be fair to a cis female to have to compete in the same class as someone with a penis and all the characteristics of male, but they identify as female?  say in a 100 yard dash?

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:26:19 AM
so you're saying that we should just ignore the genitals and sex completely?  how do you solve that when it comes to lockerrooms, possibly when an inpatient and having to share a room, if convicted and incarcerated?
would it be fair to someone with a vagina to be housed with someone with a penis, where possibly a crime could be committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal?

I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:34:54 AM
I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

I never characterized anybody as anything and I suggest you go back and edit that comment!  The possibility exists both ways and to deny that it could happen is quite ignorant.  If you have a somebody that identifies as female housed with males but still retaining male organs, the possiblity exists for them to be raped (such as in correctional institutions) and on the flip side, someone with testicles, penis, testosterone identifying as female is in a position to conduct a rape if sexually attracted to a woman with a vagina if in the same situation............

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:34:54 AM
I'm saying we ignore the genitals, because they do not define someone's sex.  That's really simple.

There's something to be said for a lot of advancements that feminism has brought us.  The characterization of penis as villain penetrating women's spaces with its mere presence is not one of them.

Also, the fact that you bring up bathroom rape is not appropriate.  Under really any circumstances.  You're characterizing trans women as sexual predators, and that really is unconscionable.  It's what extremists do to erase us and to fearmonger whenever we want to be recognized as our rightful, identified sex.

and yes, the genitals along with the reproductive organs (as well as which gamete is produced) loosely defines sex......nobody is just going to ignore them, not the legal community, not the medical community and not society in general

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:42:03 AM
I never characterized anybody as anything and I suggest you go back and edit that comment!  The possibility exists both ways and to deny that it could happen is quite ignorant.  If you have a somebody that identifies as female housed with males but still retaining male organs, the possiblity exists for them to be raped (such as in correctional institutions) and on the flip side, someone with testicles, penis, testosterone identifying as female is in a position to conduct a rape if sexually attracted to a woman with a vagina if in the same situation............

I'm not editing anything.

"A crime committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal"?  You're saying that trans women have the potential to rape other women, and that that characteristic is intrinsic to their genitals, which is a) insulting to men, because the assumption is that only "penis-bearers" are sexual predators, b) insulting to trans women, because you characterize them as equivalent to males in this situation, c) insulting to women because you're assuming that only cis-or-post-operative-trans women are capable of being raped, and d) insulting to the trans* community at large, because they're the ones who are far more often the victims of rape than cis people.

Rape is not just PVI, Jamie.  Rape is any number of things, and it can be perpetrated by someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement, against someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement.  To deny that fact is not only ignorant but sexist.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on October 28, 2011, 01:43:38 AM
Are you serious here or just poking fun at the conversation? I think you're joking but I'm not quite sure. It almost sounds serious.

actually, I'm being very serious......nearly everywhere we go, we are separated by sex.  restrooms, patients in the hospital rooming together, locker rooms, phys ed classes (sometimes coed), etc etc..........so exactly how can we just ignore the genitals and reproductive organs?

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 01:46:30 AM
I'm not editing anything.

"A crime committed in the height of a possible sexual arousal"?  You're saying that trans women have the potential to rape other women, and that that characteristic is intrinsic to their genitals, which is a) insulting to men, because the assumption is that only "penis-bearers" are sexual predators, b) insulting to women, because you characterize them as equivalent to males in this situation, and c) insulting to the trans* community at large, because they're the ones who are far more often the victims of rape than cis people.

Rape is not just PVI, Jamie.  Rape is any number of things, and it can be perpetrated by someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement, against someone of any gender/sex/genital arrangement.  To deny that fact is not only ignorant but sexist.

you dont think it can happen or are you in denial?  you got a creditable source to back up your claim about the trans community being raped more often?  A very popular debate (and it is not my opinion or stance) is that who's to stop a sexual predator (either sex) from saying they are trans for the sole purpose of gaining access to the opposite sex?
I dont think that ignoring the genitals is an option that society in "genderal" will accept

so i guess my main question is this:  for those who identify as one gender/sex/whatever and have no intention of ever changing their hormones, have no intention of changing their anatomy, what do we do and how do we do it? 
how do we convince society in general to accept this view?

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:52:50 AM
you dont think it can happen or are you in denial?  you got a creditable source to back up your claim about the trans community being raped more often?  A very popular debate (and it is not my opinion or stance) is that who's to stop a sexual predator (either sex) from saying they are trans for the sole purpose of gaining access to the opposite sex?

First result on Google (http://my.execpc.com/~dmmunson/Nov99_7.htm), and sixth result (http://blogathon.thecurvature.com/?p=124), and that's without even trying to actually uncover comparative data.  Those numbers aren't pretty.  This one (http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds)'s a doozy, too.

Jamie, you're telling your own community that we are potential sexual predators because of an aspect of ourselves that hey none of us signed up for.  This isn't a good way to make friends.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:59:29 AM
so i guess my main question is this:  for those who identify as one gender/sex/whatever and have no intention of ever changing their hormones, have no intention of changing their anatomy, what do we do and how do we do it? 
how do we convince society in general to accept this view?

By aggressively asserting that it's okay to be that way, instead of calling them rapists just waiting for the right opportunity, perhaps?

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:52:50 AM
you got a creditable source to back up your claim about the trans community being raped more often?

Trans population:

Sexual assault (64%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg 1)
Sexual violence in K-12 education (12%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 2)
Sexually assaulted by homeless center staff (22%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 3)
Sexual assault while in prison (15%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 4)

General Population:

24% of Women and 17% of men will be the victims of rape or attempted rape at some point in their life (Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)

Quote from: Brooke McKay on October 28, 2011, 02:09:30 AM
Trans population:

Sexual assault (64%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg 1)
Sexual violence in K-12 education (12%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 2)
Sexually assaulted by homeless center staff (22%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 3)
Sexual assault while in prison (15%) ("Injustice at Every Turn", pg. 4)

General Population:

24% of Women and 17% of men will be the victims of rape or attempted rape at some point in their life (Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)

is that overall or within the specific population?  64% of 100000 is not greater then 24% of roughly half the earths population

As someone who was raped by my mother, I find the assumption that only people with a penis are potential rapists absurd and insulting and unrealistic (some of the stuff that goes on in women's prisons is appalling).

Not to mention the assumption that anyone with a penis is sexually interested in women, which is weirdly heterosexist.

Quote from: Padma on October 28, 2011, 02:30:50 AM
As someone who was raped by my mother, I find the assumption that only people with a penis are potential rapists absurd and insulting and unrealistic (some of the stuff that goes on in women's prisons is appalling).

Not to mention the assumption that anyone with a penis is sexually interested in women, which is weirdly heterosexist.

it can go either way and does go either way

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:59:29 AM
how do we convince society in general to accept this view?

The same way you convince anyone of anything:  education

What, you didn't think we were going to use penis rape and shotguns to convince society that we are female...

I think Jamies words are taken out of context.
She has a point, when she says that every man can say, hey I'm a woman and can have unlimited access to women places with wrong intentions, she will be accursed of saying that every trans is a potential raper, she didn't say that, she was only asking and trying to understand.

Tell me, why are those angry reactions?
After all, one can abuse the status of being trans and doing nasty things.
While reading her question it makes me curious as well.
You can take all the things who are writen about the subject but suppose taking a shower after sporting in the women's place, how will women react when they see a penis?
You can say, I'm a woman too but my guess is they won't believe you, do they?

This has nothing to do with saying that every non op is a sexual predator.
Just the fact that most women wouldn't be feeling comfortable.
Just do it, go to the woman shower and see how they react.
I think Jamie has a point there.

Annette

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:28:52 AM
not to mention sporting activies......would be fair to a cis female to have to compete in the same class as someone with a penis and all the characteristics of male, but they identify as female?  say in a 100 yard dash?

I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone use their penis for running.

More seriously: When there's a legitimate social interest in defining and separating men and women based on biology (men's physical advantages, crime statistics, etc), then the best way to do it is to use hormone levels, not genitalia. While genitals may be a decent proxy for hormones on a macro scale, they fail quite often on an individual level, and not just for trans people. And hormones themselves are just an imperfect proxy for things like muscle mass, sex drive, sexual orientation, and aggressiveness. Better to use the first-order proxy than the second-order one - it introduces less error.

Hi Annette,
the point you are making I initially in my naiveté, and un-knowing had made in one of the FtM threads. Oh my word!

I got flamed to cinders, I was absolutely stunned, taken aback, speechless. So much for a learning experience. Obviously not all things are equal, and then some.

Have a transman in the men's shower, binder off [i.e. breast] and a vagina, and then state your 'fact' being male... hello!

Go figure your own consequences to that very equal scenario...

Never the less, as I said: NOT ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL, and it is for that very reason that this issue will NEVER EVER be resolved, ever.

So why waste energy, it is not going to resolved.
Just – please – so long MtF pre- and non-ops stop wagging their members in our (post-op) faces I be so much obliged, really! We really don't want to know how many inches you still have in your panties, really we don't.
Just if you can keep it to yourself and don't make your 'dangle' such a proud 'female with extra' achievement. Now wouldn't THAT be nice?

What more to say,
Axelle
PS: and maybe save that butter for your pop-corn too? Now that be really nice

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 01:42:03 AM
I never characterized anybody as anything and I suggest you go back and edit that comment!  The possibility exists both ways and to deny that it could happen is quite ignorant.  If you have a somebody that identifies as female housed with males but still retaining male organs, the possiblity exists for them to be raped (such as in correctional institutions) and on the flip side, someone with testicles, penis, testosterone identifying as female is in a position to conduct a rape if sexually attracted to a woman with a vagina if in the same situation............

...whether or not penises are available does not stop rape in women's prisons.

I don't claim to have a masters or anything like that in gender identity. But I do have a lot of experience from basic observation.

One thing I've learned is science is never an absolute. Definition change over time and what we may call a "fact" now may not be so in the future. With that in mind is there a true definition of the term "sex" and "gender"? Alot of what I've seen has always been based on stereotypes. Males are this, Females are that.

Point being is that sex and gender are such a lucritive term. we can define sex as the part we play in the reproductive cycle of life. However there are people who are unable to carry out such roles but it doesn't make them any less female or male. *Example from what Sarah7 said*

To me its a simple classification that we have developed to create seperation, no different that say cow or bull, black or white, canine or feline. It's that mentality that helped me cope with my situation for so long before I needed to make this change.

the problem I face is that I show a lot more femine traits in which makes my interaction with the human race a lot more difficult. No one can accept someone for just who they are. Men need to be strong, hit on girls when they are married, crush beer cans with the heads and any one who doesn't is considered "gay" and thrown into the eternal pit of f*** you to be a social outcast for the rest of their lives. *please be mindful this is just from where I lived and doesn't constitute the mentality of the rest of the country but the principles are still the same.*

Mostly it's all about labels. If we didn't have the need to push our own views on how others live their lives to be honest their problems wouldn't be a TG community. But it's just not the world we live in.

QuoteI know that prisons classify people according to genitals only, but most people do not see another persons genitals.

There was a recent comment in another thread (which shall remain anonymous) where the person was talking about using their penis to anally penetrate another person and something they enjoyed immensely. If that happened to me I would tell the police my attacker was a male.

When that did happen to me as a result of rape, I described that person as male. I didnt stop to ask them their gender preference. You will never get me to ascribe that person as female.

If that happened to me while making love (anally or vaginally) with a blindfold on and I never saw my partners face, I would look at that person as a male. I wouldnt be fantasizing that it was a female (maybe you would? lets get real here ...well, maybe popcorn butter lovers might ...to put a little humor here).

You gender theorists can talk til your blue in the face, but a hard penis is just that ...a male device.

If it's on my body, it gets chopped off. Because women have vaginas, clitorises, labia, breasts, etc ...in my opinion of gender theory. They dont have hard-ons.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on October 28, 2011, 02:06:20 AM
I've met transwomen who have never taken a hormone, never had srs and the people in their life don't know they are trans. Nothing they do, say, etc. is male, it's all female. They look female. They are female...to the people that they run into on a daily basis. So what's the difference between THAT person and someone who is post-op with a vagina that society views as "male" even though they see themselves as female.

It just seems like vaginas and penises don't really shape what society thinks of people, the gender cues/physicalness that people give off makes society see them as male/female. Male/female isn't something society debates, it's something gender theory people and transpeople tend to debate. If I go to a bank in a rural town in Indiana and the teller sees with her eyes everything I do as female but in my jeans I have a penis, she'll call and see me as female. If the opposite is true, she sees male, but I'm post-op, it won't matter that I have a vagina. I mean I could pull my pants down and say "look, vagina! I'm a girl" but it probably won't matter.

This is true. It's only in a forum that people tell others what's in their pants, the general public have no idea and I'm sure they don't tell people irl. If you look female, it is just assumed you have a vagina and looking male, have a penis. So all the arguing in the world is not going to change what the general public view as either female or male. This is a forum where everyone can say pretty much what they like.

If one is so inclined to be a deviant, an abuser, that is in their makeup. They have low morals. Rapists and child abusers can be male or female. One can be raped by a penis or any other object, it's still rape. Women have raped boys......blah, blah, blah.... this is ridiculous.

It's sad to think that a few who have had a penis most of their life obviously viewed themselves and others as potential rapists the whole time, and whalah! has it removed, now is safe in society??!! Pretty strange thinking. ::)

when I had a penis I viewed my body as male ...because well, frankly, it was. My body was that of a man.

Until the issue of sex assault in prison in general is addressed, it's unfair to presume a trans person of any genital configuration is somehow uniquely suited to be a predator. Rape is about power and control, not sexual gratification. A penis is not the only thing that can be used to forcibly penetrate someone and the vagina is not the only orifice that can be abused for the sake of asserting dominance.

Trans people in these scenarios are more likely to be the victims, not the perpetrators. Yes, even in prison! I'm horrified by how easily some of you not only lose sight of that, but are also so quick to throw other trans people under the bus.

If we defined our gender on whether or not we go through certain medical steps then we are essentially letting a doctor determine our gender for us without our input in the matter; thus completing the circle of when we were born and the doctor determining our sex by looking at our genitals without a say in the matter.

Gender is determined by who you are and not what pills you are taking or how many therapy sessions you went to or how many surgeries you have undergone. Gender isn't determined by SRS either. If this was true, then it would make no sense for the States to give out Driver Licenses with "F" or "M" without the prerequisite of surgery. The only reason why most states still do Birth Certificates this way is because of legislation. However, States are beginning to recognize that one does not need to have SRS to be the gender they want and they are changing the laws accordingly.

To say everyone must SRS or to take HRT to be considered their gender is not fair. It is also incorrect. If someone specifically feels they are not a woman until SRS is completed then that is their own convictions but don't assume that type of logic for everyone.

What I find ironic is when some trans will say to other trans "you're not a woman (MTF)", "You're not a man (FTM)", or you are not a woman (or man) yet" and then, at the same time, you have others who aren't trans that will tell those very same trans who tried to label others that they are not women either.

I wont even go into the restroom issue. It's not even worth talking about because it was so wrong.

Becoming a woman (or man) is not when you wake up from anesthesia after a surgery; rather, becoming a woman is when you open your eyes that you realize you are the gender you were suppose to be.

Quote from: Annah on October 28, 2011, 08:29:49 AM
Becoming a woman (or man) is not when you wake up from anesthesia after a surgery; rather, becoming a woman is when you open your eyes that you realize you are the gender you were suppose to be.

+1

Quote from: Valeriedoeswcs on October 28, 2011, 07:28:14 AM
when I had a penis I viewed my body as male ...because well, frankly, it was. My body was that of a man.

and if you thought your gender body was male prior to surgery then that is your own personal path and convictions. However, others here view our entire being; body and soul as female regardless of a new vagina or not.

I know many transmen are are very masculine and very male who never had bottom surgery. I view them just as much a man as a cisman. Same principle goes for transwomen.

When I go out with a man or a woman I do not ask them to show me their genitals to see what gender they are. I look into their eyes and see the gender coming from their spirit, their smiles, their convictions and their stories.

is anyone going to answer the question in the OP?

allow me to be more clear and provide and clearer example:
for someone born male, that identifies as female, yet has every intention of keeping their penis, how do we explain the concept that they believe they are female?  how do we explain to a society that separates us based on genitalia?
please help me understand this

This is a thread about biological sex. If a man is impregnated and has a child I for one do not view that as a male experience. Am I to look into his eyes with his belly grown full term, his breasts engorged and view him as male? Well when that happens, I will let you know what it was like.

There are very many beautiful women and handsome men on this site. Do I simply judge them based on their genitals, no, of course not. As folks with our condition, as folks with our transitional state, we are a blend of sex in some cases, and in others were are one or the other.

But the human population as a whole entity, aside from the exceptions, is biologically, reproductively male or female

to me it doesn't matter if a jelly fish gives birth to a baby boy or girl on a roller coaster in Disney World. None of that means very little to me in terms of gender expression.

What matters most to me is how that person feels about her/himself and who do they say they are.

Nosce te ipsum
Know yourself.

We all as sentient human beings will decide for ourselves what is this or that. What makes sense in our world.

If some of the folks here view pregnant people as men go right ahead.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 12:51:17 AM
I'm not a big fan of the "female with a birth defect" argument, because the scientist in me does have to admit that yes, I was born physiologically and chromosomally under the classifications of a species-typical male and didn't seem to have a problem with that for at least some amount of time.  I can and will soon remedy the physiological-psychological disconnect, but the chromosomal one will always remain.  In the same way as an intersex person cannot cease to be intersex, I cannot ever stop being transsexual. 

I do not have a physiological-psychological disconnect, I have a brain-crotch disconnect. My brain is wired differently than it was supposed to be based on my genitals (or my genitals are arranged incorrectly based on how my brain is wired), this causes pain, ergo I perceive it as a defect (just as my migraines are a defect). I also believe that I won't stop being transsexual (specifically a transsexual female, as I was born); however, I can treat at least some of the defects caused by my condition (again, exactly like my migraines). None of that is an argument. It is a personal statement of identity.

"Decartes' mind/body divide is one the worst things to ever happen to medical science." That's an argument. :P

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 28, 2011, 09:56:34 AM
I do not have a physiological-psychological disconnect, I have a brain-crotch disconnect. My brain is wired differently than it was supposed to be based on my genitals (or my genitals are arranged incorrectly based on how my brain is wired), this causes pain, ergo I perceive it as a defect (just as my migraines are a defect). I also believe that I won't stop being transsexual (specifically a transsexual female, as I was born); however, I can treat at least some of the defects caused by my condition (again, exactly like my migraines). None of that is an argument. It is a personal statement of identity.

"Decartes' mind/body divide is one the worst things to ever happen to medical science." That's an argument. :P

I love your writing and way of thinking of self and life.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
allow me to be more clear and provide and clearer example:
for someone born male, that identifies as female, yet has every intention of keeping their penis, how do we explain the concept that they believe they are female?  how do we explain to a society that separates us based on genitalia?
please help me understand this

I mean, the only way for public perception to change is with time.  While older generations still feel more stigma against trans people of any kind, I think there's a great deal more understanding within the generations that are young adults right now.  My sister didn't even question my identity when I told her at age 12.  She simply accepted it, and overnight, I became her sister.  (Not her brother-until-sex-reassignment.)

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 28, 2011, 09:56:34 AM
I do not have a physiological-psychological disconnect, I have a brain-crotch disconnect. My brain is wired differently than it was supposed to be based on my genitals (or my genitals are arranged incorrectly based on how my brain is wired), this causes pain, ergo I perceive it as a defect (just as my migraines are a defect). I also believe that I won't stop being transsexual (specifically a transsexual female, as I was born); however, I can treat at least some of the defects caused by my condition (again, exactly like my migraines). None of that is an argument. It is a personal statement of identity.

"Decartes' mind/body divide is one the worst things to ever happen to medical science." That's an argument. :P

I've seen the studies regarding bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) sexual dimorphism, and the evidence certainly supports a neurobiological model for transsexuality, but I'm not entirely convinced.  The correlation could be indicative of a common cause of the two, or it even could be the reverse: that transsexuality causes biological sex-atypical bed nucleus synaptic connections.

I definitely agree with you on the latter half, though, even if I'd word it a little different personally.  I see the aspects of my chromosomal and current anatomical sex to be functionally normal, but because they cause me psychological distress, I believe that their removal will lead to greater happiness.

In terms of identity, I'm a female.  I don't think that the pathologization of transsexuality helps us as a community, so to call it a "birth defect", even in a way that asserts our identified sex, I see as potentially harmful for the image of the trans* community.  Gender variance happens, and it should be accepted as an alternative to species-typical gender conformity.

Quote from: Wonderdyke on October 28, 2011, 11:44:07 AM
Gender variance happens, and it should be accepted as an alternative to species-typical gender conformity.

I think this is what everyone has been saying all along. Yet some of us are penalized, mocked, shunned, smited, put down, denigrated and told just to stfu for saying the exact same thing.

At least its what Ive been saying. There is gender variance while at the same time there is species typical gender conformity in the population when taken as a whole of some billions. Variance does happen and should be accepted without a doubt, but it is not the rule considering the entire population of the planet. And expecting that entire population to change based on those variances is unrealistic.

But if it makes people feel better to smite and ban, then smite and ban away.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 28, 2011, 12:43:19 PM
:icon_redface: Thank you, Val. But honestly, Rebekah is a decade younger than me, and probably twice as smart as me. :P

Yes, we have to recognize brilliance. Cheers to you both.

Quote from: Sarah7 on October 28, 2011, 12:43:19 PM
The discrepancies in my body cause me (though it's somewhat better now) to feel nauseous, like I am going to throw up. The stress of trying (and failing) at pretending to be a bloke produced migraines. The anorexia, insomnia, cutting, and suicide attempts were all physical damage to my body. Being on testosterone directly impacts my mental functioning - depression, apathy, anxiety, strange outbursts of rage and irritation. There is no wall between the physiological and the psychological. My anatomical sex was not functioning normally.

And it's MY birth defect. I don't feel anyone else needs to identify that way. And if me identifying that way is negatively effecting other trans folk then we get back to other really stupid ->-bleeped-<- about non-ops and etc. Please lets not go there. Nobody should subordinate their identity to "the trans* community." How about I promise to keep my story out of the media, good enough?

Obviously, I support the decision of anyone to self-identify however they want, because their individuality is worth more than "image", whatever messed up concept that is that we have to be "well-behaved" so that one "lapse" doesn't cause transphobia to persist, so if you see it as your birth defect, then your birth defect it is, and I'll classify the way I feel in my own way. :)

(No seriously, you raise a good point.  We don't need to pay homage to the trans* community for any reason.)

Quote
But your last line I entirely agree with. I'm just not sure it describes me very well. Gender doesn't really mean much to me: I'd be entirely comfortable in a non-gendered society, probably more comfortable than I am in this one. My "trans-ness" is exclusively in regards to my body and how my body is perceived.

Hm.  I'm not sure where you're getting the suggestion you bring up, because the same is true for me; in the same way that I feel uncomfortable with male gender roles, I don't like being pigeonholed into female gender roles because my sexual identity is female.

Quote
:icon_redface: Thank you, Val. But honestly, Rebekah is a decade younger than me, and probably twice as smart as me. :P

Flattery!  You're quite kind, but it's mostly that passion regarding an issue drives me to learn.  There are other fields where I know nothing! >_>

Another reason why true transsexual and transgender are different things. Transgender girls just act like girls and try to get away with looking like one. Transgender girls' gender is female but their body stays male. True transsexuals on the other hand have gender as female and sex becomes female too. The term transgender means to change "gender" or sex of personality and the term transsexual means to change sex of body. I feel like I'm on the wrong board and I am looking for people who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome.

Quote from: ♥ Alyssa Case ♥ on October 28, 2011, 01:27:56 PM
Another reason why true transsexual and transgender are different things. Transgender girls just act like girls and try to get away with looking like one. Transgender girls' gender is female but their body stays male. True transsexuals on the other hand have gender as female and sex becomes female too. The term transgender means to change "gender" or sex of personality and the term transsexual means to change sex of body. I feel like I'm on the wrong board and I am looking for people who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome.

the word transgender and transsexual can mean different things to different people.  No one word is longer the correct way of saying something to define someone else.

For example, my doctors and I use "transgender" because I went from one gender presentation to another. I do not use "transsexual" because transsexual can often times be connotative to sexuality in which it is not for me because my sexuality stayed absolutely the same. Nothing "transed" over.

What I mean by this is someone will say ok...."homosexual = sexually attracted to same sex" "Heterosexual = sexually attracted to different sex" "Asexual = No real attraction to any sex" and "pansexual = attracted to any form of sexual attraction."

So if I went off of these terms, then someone can easily construe "Transsexual = attracted to a crossing sex." Which can be confusing to laity.

Also, the United Kingdom uses the word "Transgender" in most of their articles and books when dealing with your version of "transsexual."

It's just a label. To try to clearly define one over another will never ever work. Because no matter how much evidence you have to support one word, another person can come up with the same evidence for the other.

Same goes for sexual reassignment surgery versus gender confirmation surgery. The two words are basically describing the same procedure. It is how you, personally, see the phrase and how it is important to you that matters.
Whenever I am approached and they ask what I am, I simply tell them "I am female."

Haha. Excuse me for a moment, I just noticed something. Some people's smites just wont stick. How does that work? ...its too funny. Some people really are saints and walk on water, very cool.

Okay, back to regular programming...

I disagree that transsexuality is simply a label. It is a diagnosis. Here are some snippets from the Medical Necessity Statement from WPATH.

WPATH - Medical Neccesity Statement (http://www.wpath.org/medical_necessity_statement.cfm)

Quote
<SNIP>
Gender Identity Disorder (GID), more commonly known as transsexualism, is a condition recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV, 1994, and DSM-IV-TR, 2000), published by the American Psychiatric Association. Transsexualism is also recognized in the ICD Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, tenth revision, as endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly in May 1990, and came into use in WHO Member States as of 1994.

<SNIP>
The criteria listed for Gender Identity Disorders (GID) (at F.64) including transsexualism (at F.64.0) are descriptive of many people who experience dissonance between their sex as assigned at birth and their gender identity, which is developed in early childhood and understood to be firmly established by age 4,[1]  though for some transgender individuals, gender identity may remain somewhat fluid for many years. The ICD 10 descriptive criteria were developed to aid in diagnosis and treatment to alleviate the clinically significant distress and impairment known as gender dysphoria that is often associated with transsexualism.

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

That said I identify as a woman as well, who doesnt, other than the guys? I did suffer from transsexualism which I was cured of.

My smite should be erased as well. That person did it because I didn't agree with her opinion and wouldn't return her PMs. Lol. So childish.

i think that's awesome you use the term "transsexual" and you were cured of it.

I just use a different label.

Quote from: Annah on October 28, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
i think that's awesome you use the term "transsexual" and you were cured of it.

I just use a different label.

Why cant you acknowledge that it is a standard professional medical diagnostic term and if a different diagnostic term is used in your case then use that? What harm does that do you? Why do we have to argue?

To go back to the topic, this is a thread about biological reproductive sex hence my statements on hard penises and pregnancies.

I received a violation warning for the below quote.

QuoteBecause women have vaginas, clitorises, labia, breasts, etc ...in my opinion of gender theory. They dont have hard-ons.

Just so everyone knows.  I am not disputing it publicly. Just putting it in the context of this discussion. Other people are free to make threads on masturbating with popcorn butter or penetrating their partners anally but still consider themselves women, but if I make a statement about hard-ons of my personal view of male and female bodies, its objectionable. There is a double standard in my case.

It is up to the rest of you to discuss this honestly.  I hope you do.

Quote from: Valeriedances on October 28, 2011, 02:56:41 PM
Why cant you acknowledge that it is a standard professional medical diagnostic term and if a different diagnostic term is used in your case then use that? What harm does that do you? Why do we have to argue?

I'm not arguing over it. It's valid for you to use transsexual and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever and it is valid for me to use transgender and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Labels just isn't something that defines me so it's not a big deal to me which label is used. If I am forced to use a label then I chose to pick transgender. No one is making you chose a label for me and no one is making you to chose a label for you. So, how I see it, the argument is kinda a moot point about which one is right and which one is wrong.

It's simply whichever one you want to use.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html)

Community Definitons for Susans

Transgender: an inclusive umbrella term which covers anyone who transcends their birth gender for any reason. This includes but is not limited to Androgynes, Crossdressers, Drag kings, Drag queens, Intersexuals, Transsexuals, and ->-bleeped-<-s.

Transsexual: a person who is mentally one gender, but has the body of the other. They desire to live and be accepted as a member of the mental gender, this is generally accompanied by the strong desire to make their body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatments.

These are the accepted definitions for Susans, so TG and TS are not interchangeable here.

thanks :)

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
allow me to be more clear and provide and clearer example:
for someone born male, that identifies as female, yet has every intention of keeping their penis, how do we explain the concept that they believe they are female?  how do we explain to a society that separates us based on genitalia?

if someone claims a gender of female based on their characteristics, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly, their gender is female.......

where I have trouble understanding and comprehending is how can one claim a certain "sex" status when their genitalia is opposite the sex they are claiming and in some cases, have no interest in having the genitalia of the sex they are claiming.  can someone, anyone, help me at all in understanding this concept?

I would explain it exactly the same way as transsexuality is explained. For many people the mere idea that a gender identity can be different from ones genetic sex can be hard to understand.

To further answer your question, you need to realize that humans portray an enormous diversity in feelings and attitudes. Some people simply think different about certain concepts and as long as they do not harm others they are free to do so.
So how can anybody identify as female while keeping the male organ or vice versa?
People think differently about transition and being female. Some long for the srs above all, others find it far more important to be able to live and be accepted as a woman both professionally and socially, than to correct a small part that nobody will ever see. If I was presented the choice between a srs or by passing as a woman in public I would choose the latter without a doubt.
It can be that the person simply puts no value in their penis. If they don't hate it, if it is not in the way, if it doesn't affect their day to day life then why undergo a costly and risky invasive operation?

My apologies that this post is mainly written from a mtf point of view.

All those labels under the transgender umbralla are indication of conditions of GID. They are conformists to the default gender binary due to biological imprints, i.e. MTF wishes to conform to cis female and FTM wishes to conform to cis male. The legal framework is based on physical (biological) characteristics, not mental. If legal framework can based mentally, it is highly subjective to abuse and manipulation of laws for criminal activities.

Quote from: Jacelyn on October 28, 2011, 06:54:40 PM
All those labels under the transgender umbralla are indication of conditions of GID. They are conformists to the default gender binary due to biological imprints, i.e. MTF wishes to conform to cis female and FTM wishes to conform to cis male. The legal framework is based on physical (biological) characteristics, not mental. If legal framework can based mentally, it is highly subjective to abuse and manipulation of laws for criminal activities.

Jacelyn, you kinda lost me half way through that explanation :)

Quote from: The queen zombie on October 28, 2011, 07:33:55 PM
That's rather confusing IMO although I am the queen zombie! Lol

wb ;)

So basically Wonderdyke knows what she's talking about.

It seems that there are overwhelming majorities promoting gender expression,
with significant points, pointing that it is sufficient for legal changes.

Counter-arguments include "rape is a concern" and "women don't have penises"

Where are all the post-op FTM's crying foul? For that matter do pre-op FTM's
complain of danger when they are in male restrooms?

I understand the whole gender vs. sex thing very well thanks to informative posters,
but I don't think these definitions were the desired answers.

I feel like eating popcorn watching this thread.

This whole thing is about validation.  Unfortunately that is something most transsexuals will not have.  There will always be someone who doesn't think of you the way you think of yourself regardless of what you've done to be perceived that way.  For some people, it is all about chromosomes, for others it is about presentation, but for what I believe is the vast majority, whether or not you are perceived as a male or female, is about the vibe you give them.  Real scientific I know.

So I say, good luck in your uphill battle.  Changing society is never easy, but the best thing we can do is be vocal, visible, and very harmless.

People are talking all this stuff about statistics "74% of TGs are more likely to rape Bambi with a 8' spiked Conan the barbarian peppermint candy cane than non tgs. Just because it's been made easier."

Well how about this? Christians are a lot more likely to legalize the beating and death of Gays than non Christians and because we allow some to get into politics "It's made easier." So should we ban anyone who is christian from running for office? Of course not. Why? because those who are like that are some of them not all of them.

People will always find ways to use laws and regulation to their immoral purposes. The idea is not to create these laws just cause of a few perverts. That only hurts those who need the protection the law is meant for. As a matter of fact I've known of "holy groups" who will do atrocious things like that just to scream why this law should not be passed just so those who need that protection will not get it.
We need to watch the individual, not the group.

Hi Venus
To reply on your post about passing or srs and what to choose.
Suppose you can have both ? wouldn't you go for the srs because you're passing allready?

Last night I was in Amsterdam, seeing a show with drag queens, they were really beautiful, if you didn't know one could say these were lady's, so they should pass, they were very professional with their act.
But, proud to be a man and gay, calling "she" was not what they liked to hear, it was an act.
So, now it's gonna be complicated, looking like a lady and still want to pronounce with he.
Why? Those guys never ever wanted something to change about their genitals, never.

IMO, if one have a crave to be a woman, one wants to live as a woman with all the facts about womanhood, and that's far more than wearing cute clothes and put on the make up.
I maybe a bit blond but I don't understand why one wants to be seen and live as a woman but refuse the treatment for it, I am NOT saying they don't have the right to it, everybody should live how they want to live. I only saying I don't understand but that's from my limited binairy perspective.
Nobody sees what's between your legs? Fall in love with someone, make love and there is a slight change they will notice about it, I'm pretty sure of that.

I am really curious about your reply on this.

XX
Annette

QuoteI maybe a bit blond but I don't understand why one wants to be seen and live as a woman but refuse the treatment for it, I am NOT saying they don't have the right to it, everybody should live how they want to live.

There is the risk of less than desirable results, complications, and death (not to mention the huge price tag.)  It's a permanent and serious decision to make, and for those who's dysphoria is not strongly centered around their genitals it might seem unnecessary for them to live a happy life.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
allow me to be more clear and provide and clearer example:
for someone born male, that identifies as female, yet has every intention of keeping their penis, how do we explain the concept that they believe they are female?  how do we explain to a society that separates us based on genitalia?
please help me understand this

Why is it so critical for you to separate people into groups? Isn't that the basis of discrimination? If we want racism to go away we need to stop looking at it from the perspective that there are black people, brown people, white people, yellow people, etc. What really matters is that there are people. They have different color skin, but they also have different colored hair, and eyes, and perhaps one has freckles and one does, or one has hairy knuckles and another doesn't. People are people and separating them out into categories only provides the framework for raising individual groups above others.

Now, in the case of physiological differences I'll pull from the ever loved bathroom scenario. It's stupid. There are zero practical physiological reasons why we require bathrooms to be separate by body-type. All humans urinate and defecate; duh. Certainly women require stalls, lacking required body parts to make use of the "for-your-convenience" urinals. HOWEVER this is a trivial factor and in reality provides no detriment to a communal facility. In actuality, combining such facilities would provide an increased traffic capacity for everyone. Take for example the situation where the men's restroom goes nearly unused while the women's has a line out the door. Those facilities reserved for men are being underutilized solely for the sake of gender exclusion.

As for gender, I like to look at the entire structure of gender as a human manifestation of the preconceived roles of provider and nurturer. They are ideas of convenience and prescribe no real meaning at all. Consider for a minute what it means to be a girl, in the sense of gender and entirely disregarding physiological differences from female and male bodies. Certainly there are some things girls prefer more than boys, and vice versa. But are these preferences imbued by nature or by man? Are affinities for things, such as pink or blue, only a vestige of human intervention into the early stages of development? If a human was devoid of color entirely would they naturally fall along the "girls prefer pink and boys prefer blue" stereotype? I tend to believe they would not, that such decisions are influenced entirely by experience. At this avenue I'd like to assert that gender means nothing. It is a word we use to describe a condition that, as a condition itself, has very little meaning anymore. Most boundaries once erected between the two predominate man and woman genders have been brought down the same way we brought down the Wall; with blood, sweat, and tears.




I didn't proofread this, Captain America just finished encoding and I've been itching to watch it all day, certainly you all understand  ::). Sorry if parts of it seem to jump around, or make no sense at all. Hopefully I only need to swing my stick at this salacious equine once.

I think we need to keep in mind that every description will be limited by the need to describe an idea or object in words.  No two people will derive exactly the same meaning from any word, and the word is not the thing described, just a model.
We tend to forget these points. Also definitions change over time, and from place to place.

Karen. (Who is quite into the philosophy of General Semantics.)

Quote from: Valeriedances on October 28, 2011, 07:28:14 AM
when I had a penis I viewed my body as male ...because well, frankly, it was. My body was that of a man.

However you viewed/view your body is one thing, but don't try to put your views of your body onto those of others.

Quote from: Annah on October 28, 2011, 08:43:17 AM
and if you thought your gender body was male prior to surgery then that is your own personal path and convictions. However, others here view our entire being; body and soul as female regardless of a new vagina or not.

I know many transmen are are very masculine and very male who never had bottom surgery. I view them just as much a man as a cisman. Same principle goes for transwomen.

When I go out with a man or a woman I do not ask them to show me their genitals to see what gender they are. I look into their eyes and see the gender coming from their spirit, their smiles, their convictions and their stories.

This this this.

Quote from: Jamie Nicole on October 28, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
allow me to be more clear and provide and clearer example:
for someone born male, that identifies as female, yet has every intention of keeping their penis, how do we explain the concept that they believe they are female?  how do we explain to a society that separates us based on genitalia?

Honestly why does it matter?  The only way anyone will ever know what is in a person's pants is if they are told by that person.  Based on outward appearances people assume that the genitals match the gender being presented.

Quote from: Morrigan on October 28, 2011, 10:27:06 PM
Where are all the post-op FTM's crying foul?

Because, the guys aren't stupid enough to engage in useless catfights.  And no, this is not a stereotype.  I'm not saying that girls are overly sensitive while guys are rational.  Although, it would certainly appear that way based on the amount of female presence in all of these "debate" threads.

Well, differences MATTER, and judgment also does.

We can try to avoid some of them, but you can not avoid ALL of them.
If we could – we'd all be dead by now.

If one can manage well e.g. live with one's BI-polar situation, why bother to do anything about it - I would agree. Just because it be not desirable to BE BI-polar? Surely not.

Now stepping out, making a spectacle of oneself, is on another page.

So, the same applies with non-op folks. If you get by well, need not look for any validation anywhere, who is to say what's up - or what you should, or should not be? (Being asexual might help though... just a thought)

Trying on these here pages to get VALIDATION for your decision (like: I LOVE my big dick, etc. etc. and now go call me a woman) is another thing yet.

No female born female would give you this sort of validation, so why look for it with post-op MtFs? Wrong place to look for this IMHO. Do your thing and go about your business? Just fine it be, - I'm sure.

If you fine, and have no issue to be who you are and look like, that's just fine, but please don't –flaunt- your decision in order to get validation. Not a good place as we have seen by now over and again.

All the fancy rhetoric will not change any of it. Be and stay who you are if it works for you. Yet looking for validation of this sort is a sign that it does not work so well for you - after all.

My 2 cents,
Axelle

I don't think any of the people who argue that they are fine with keeping their genitals,
complain that people don't accept them. I generally find those ones to already have
partners and are happy where they are. It's the lonely ones that seek to perfect their
bodies in every way.

I also wouldn't ask any non-op to consider themselves asexual, it doesn't bother me what's
between someone's legs. Maybe that's me being to accepting of a partner, but I don't see it
as such a big deal.

If you demanded a man to have a penis, most FTMs would let you down, and that's kind of
unfair, I think. If you can manage to get around such physical boundaries, I think happiness
would be easier to find.

Quote from: Valeriedances on October 28, 2011, 02:14:40 PM
Haha. Excuse me for a moment, I just noticed something. Some people's smites just wont stick. How does that work? ...its too funny. Some people really are saints and walk on water, very cool.

Okay, back to regular programming...

I disagree that transsexuality is simply a label. It is a diagnosis. Here are some snippets from the Medical Necessity Statement from WPATH.

WPATH - Medical Neccesity Statement (http://www.wpath.org/medical_necessity_statement.cfm)
That said I identify as a woman as well, who doesnt, other than the guys? I did suffer from transsexualism which I was cured of.

You are aware that this is a consensus formed among the members of WPATH? And that not all members of WPATH actually agree with it? My therapist and my gynaecologist are both members and one agrees and one disagrees.. One of them is a post-op woman.. Guess who doesn't agree?

Ah, very good, yet some more moral, exeptionalism.

Just now we can also dig up the fact the lable / notion / idea / concensus of being female and male is JUST yet just another agreement - obviously some folks over here do NOT agree with either.

Like all is a dream and NOTHING is real, hum. Sounds vaguely familiar...

So all and EVERYTHING being so fluid, it makes me wonder we can communicate at all - actually amazing.

As some Austrians would say: "Nix is fix..." (nothing is fixed :-)

Axelle

Maybe not all of the health careworkers do agree with WPATH.
But there are also people who do not agree with the law, they steal, robbing and murdering, is that a legalisation to forget about the law and agree that everything one do is okay?
If health careworkers can't live with the standards of diagnosis or treatment, they can also work somewhere else, I heard McDonald's is looking for new employers.

Quote from: Axélle on October 30, 2011, 04:21:15 AM
Morrigan,
if all is in butter (pun intended) why even bother to post here?!

I do not follow that logic. If everyone is as content as you say - we would no see those arguments of late.

Lastly, asexual... well, I speak from experience (incl. my own) and do not yet again feel like grinding my pip on this all US idealist, exceptionalist, experience.

It's getting so tedious, repetitious, and really plain boring.
Like every one and this uncle, brother, friend, etc. is SO different just to prove that everything is ever so relative, what EVER we talk about here, eish!

Um, different mind-sets, all I can say.

Hm,
Axelle

butter?

Quote from: rock chick on October 30, 2011, 12:33:19 PM
butter?

Welcome Back.

Quote from: Annah on October 30, 2011, 01:31:29 PM
Welcome Back.

I'm like, who the hell is this "rock chick". Lol.

I don't know but I do like her sense of humor.
Hey, that's what we need....to laugh a bit more.

Maybe not all of the health careworkers do agree with WPATH.
But there are also people who do not agree with the law...

But WPATH is not law.  It's a set of procedures done in an order.  It may be that WPATH is the agreed upon protocol for treating some kinds of GID, but it's not the only one.  A doctor might be risking having to argue it out in court, but not following it has no punishment attached. 

Protocols in healthcare are the results of double blind studies on thousands of persons.
A doctor can decide to do otherwise, when it goes wrong they will have a very hard time in court, because they have an obligation to keep their knowledge up to date and there is some chance, a doctor can be punished  for not doing their job anymore.

Quote from: annette on October 31, 2011, 06:53:25 AM
Protocols in healthcare are the results of double blind studies on thousands of persons.
A doctor can decide to do otherwise, when it goes wrong they will have a very hard time in court, because they have an obligation to keep their knowledge up to date and there is some chance, a doctor can be punished  for not doing their job anymore.

I never heard of a doctor or therapist who has been punished who did not follow the WPATH exactly as it is laid out.

In the latest revision of WPATH:
Clarification on the role of the SOC as flexible clinical guidelines that may be tailored for individual needs and local cultures.
Recognition of diverse non-binary gender identities and expressions.
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/09/new_standards_of_care_for_the_health_of_trans_peop.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/09/new_standards_of_care_for_the_health_of_trans_peop.php)

And right from the Standards of Care document. 7th Edition. September 2011:

The SOC are intended to be flexible in order to meet the diverse health care needs of transsexual,
transgender, and gender nonconforming people. While flexible, they offer standards for promoting
optimal health care

As for all previous versions of the SOC, the criteria put forth in this document for hormone therapy
and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria are clinical guidelines; individual health professionals
and programs may modify them.

The SOC are flexible clinical guidelines; they allow for tailoring of interventions to the needs of the individual

Source: http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf)

So, no. A doctor will not be punished if he or she does not follow the SOC exactly as laid out. Nor are they required to follow WPATH as it is laid out. As the document states, these are just general guidelines and it is up to the doctor and therapist to mold them to each specific person and case. And these are right from the SOC....newest edition (with sources)

Quote from: Axélle on October 31, 2011, 09:11:35 AM
Fine by me though.
One just has to become a LOT more selective in what one says, writes, AND in what one reads.
Axelle

I read it right from WPATH. If you disagree with their new edition then you should write to them:

Jeffrey Whitman (USA)
Executive Administrator
Email: wpath@wpath.org

Annah,
I deleted my post, yes and all be fine in the best of worlds :-)

I have no disagreement with YOU, maybe with the new rules?

I'm very sure you did not make any of it up.

Please have a lovely day of what left,
Axelle