Quote from: JessicaR on April 22, 2011, 12:02:53 AMI think the Transgender definition has become TOO broad, mixing lifestyles with life conditions.

The more broad and generalized a term becomes, the fewer people therein will truly identify with that term.

The "Benjamin scale" brought forward in the 1960s separated (or attempted to separate) "variation" into six general categories based on patient needs & desires and the appropriate medical treatments and it seemed to work well. In particular, it became the 'justification' that allowed the medical treatment of transsexuals (Type V and Type VI). The vast majority of the people so treated just vanished into the fabric of society and became invisible - which was the objective of the treatment in the first place and demonstrated the effectiveness of treatment to a conservative and non-understanding public. If the person they knew as that 'typical girl next door' was found to have been 'born different' it was easy to accept "born in the wrong body" in "a gender binary society" because she was no different than any other girl they knew.

The number of "transsexual type V & VI" were very small in proportion to the "gender variant" community as a whole and it seemed that  the success of transitions and integration of these people added a great deal of credibility to the "born in the wrong body" theory, a credibility that others wanted to tap in to. I don't know what happened between 1975 and 2000 (when I was off living a normal life) but it seems everything got lumped into one umbrella term and everyone seemed to be fighting about being "more valid" than the other. Certainly the melting of everything into one pot seemed to make it a stretch for the general public to accept any of it!

JohnR: "If gender is binary, where do intersexed people fit?" I know quite a few Intersex people and about half of them gladly accept the "gender binary" and the other half simply don't want to be categorized as either.

Quote from: Sarah7 on April 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
No. This has been covered in this thread. The medical term transsexual means: "someone who identifies as male who was assigned female at birth or someone who identifies as female who was assigned male at birth."

Transgender(ed) was originally a term developed to mean a non-op transsexual. It has since been expanded by the LGBT movement to act as an all inclusive umbrella term for any kind of gender-variant individual.

Of the "dictionaries" you link to only Merriam-Webster is a real dictionary and, surprise surprise, it actually has a fairly accurate description: "of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or ->-bleeped-<-) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth."  Note the word "differs" which is not synonymous with "opposite." And that it says identifies with OR expresses.

And further Merriam-Webster defines transsexual separately as: "a person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs) ."

Please stop trying to redefine transgender(ed) to exclude all non-transsexual identities. It is actually against the ToS for this site: "10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.  This includes but is not limited to:    * Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term."

Transgender as defined by Susan's Place: "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."

And please please stop trying to tell people they "want to be a woman (or man)." That may be true for you but it is not how all transsexuals experience their identity.

Wow, I'm surprised that my definition was actually so closed to the Merriam Webster one! I guess this is one thing though, I think many people here have confused the transgendered definition with the transsexual one.

Quote from: JessicaR on April 22, 2011, 12:02:53 AM
I'm about to say something really inflammatory.

   I apologise, ahead of time, if what follows offends you, but it's how I genuinely feel. I'm not suggesting that anyone here has less validity than anyone else... just that self-identification is quite subjective and contrary to the objective definition suggested by the first post in this thread.

  There are those that have been truly born with a birth defect. Gender Identity Disorder is a very real condition for many here... I, personally, experienced profound depression, debilitating anxiety and real suicidality as a result of my condition. I once tried to castrate myself.  My brain is physiologically female; medical treatment worked wonders for me.. HRT, quite literally saved my life; SRS has been determined a necessary medical procedure for me.

There are many here that are self-identified as "non-op" or "non-medical." Some would describe themselves as having lived years as a certain gender but still assert the desire to use the genitals they were born with. I don't get that.

  If you want to live as a woman but be a man in bed.. yep, you're Transgender. DO NOT, however, suggest that folks like me should identify with you. I think the Transgender definition has become TOO broad, mixing lifestyles with life conditions.

I'm sorry you are sorry, but I can't help but to see this post as harsh. Are you really getting into the "My pain is bigger then yours" to explain how you are more legitimate then other people? I personally still have a desire to use the genitals I was born with. Of course, if some magical fairy were to give me female genitals, along with the whole female body, I couldn't be happier. But right now, this is not how my body works.

Believe me, my condition Is painful. Believe me, you are not the only one who have and who still have suicidal thoughts about being who they are and having the body they have. I praise your courage to have undergone transition, but I beg you to remember how transition is a ->-bleeped-<-ing scary option to live with. First, you have to intervene with your body's natural hormones level. This will have the initial result of making you infertile and messing with you mind. I know most people, including me, actually desire the "messing with your mind" part, but I'm certainly not that interested in the sterilization part.

Then you actually physically remove one of your body's essential glands, so that your body will never ever be able to balance it's hormone levels on it's own. You therefore become medically dependent. Also, after surgery, which is, by the way, a very intimidating medical procedure which can certainly be very scary to many people, you have to deal with new genitals, which are certainly great, but which your body never intended to have, hence the need to dilate every day or week for fear that your body will actually try to sabotage your precious new genitals. And then, there is also the whole fight for "passing" with hair removals, FFS, voice training and, if you want to be stealth, lies. And the worst part about it is that you could do all of that and actually never pass!

Hear me on this, I'm not saying those who chose to transition are wrong to do it. I absolutely admire the courage they've had to do this. I just find insulting when someone diminishes my very real condition to a "lifestyle", simply because I fear such drastic medical procedures. One could argue that the mere fact that I don't "hurt" enough to go trough transition might mean that I'm not "really" transsexual. But then, why does a "simple lifestyle choice" hurt me so much to the point I'd want to die, when I don't even get the "lifestyle" part since I'm still closeted in fear. Right now, I don't see myself as a "cisgendered woman" with a condition. I see myself as a person who's life is made miserable because it's mind seems to want to make war to the very body that support it's life. Being transsexual goes very deeply against my values of being as independent as I can from the bindings of our modern civilization, living in sync with my environment and in the respect of my body. Hell, I even felt bad for coloring my hair.

I don't want to be transsexual. I don't want to transition. I don't want to suffer anymore. But it seems like there are some things that are beyond your control in life. What will happen of me? If only I knew. Maybe therapy will help me find my way, but it seems like such a heavy weight on my shoulder I'm afraid I'll just sink and drown.

Quote from: JessicaR on April 22, 2011, 12:02:53 AM
  If you want to live as a woman but be a man in bed.. yep, you're Transgender. DO NOT, however, suggest that folks like me should identify with you. I think the Transgender definition has become TOO broad, mixing lifestyles with life conditions.

So where did this definition come from? That being transgender has anything to do with sexual preferences? Sorry to ruin your definition but I ID as TG, live as a woman but am not "A man in bed".. Another TS here said she ID's as TG and might be pretty difficult for her to fit in your definition too

Standard Terms and Definitions at Susan's Place:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.msg337984.html#msg337984

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.

Quote from: Sarah7 on April 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM

Of the "dictionaries" you link to only Merriam-Webster is a real dictionary and, surprise surprise, it actually has a fairly accurate description: "of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or ->-bleeped-<-) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth."  Note the word "differs" which is not synonymous with "opposite." And that it says identifies with OR expresses.


Please stop trying to redefine transgender(ed) to exclude all non-transsexual identities. It is actually against the ToS for this site: "10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.  This includes but is not limited to:    * Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term."

Transgender as defined by Susan's Place: "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."

OK now I am truly lost. Where did I try to exclude people from under the "umbrella term" transgendered? What I said was "transgender is: when a male wants to become a women or a female wants to become a man." I don't see how this is in contrast to the Merriam-Webster one. Doesn't imply they actually need to become one or the other, it's the -wants to- that defines the term. Even if someone just has those thoughts of not wanting to be their birth gender, they are transgendered even if they never act on these thoughts. From someone thinking about part time cross dressing,  all the way to a "true TS" that is post op and stealth. Inclusive of all the different flavors.

Obviously I personally don't relate to everyone that is TG, like I don't relate to a FTM, why would someone want to become a guy, YUK! lol  (just kidding of course) But I accept I am part of this larger group and don't try to exclude myself or anyone from it.

If you want to point out someone who is violating this TOS you referenced,  look at the "True TS's" posting in this very thread trying to remove transsexuals from your above list.. Or the person who posted "Transgender is: people who live as women but are a man in bed".. 

I totally agree with the "Transgender as defined by Susan's Place" you posted above. Sorry if my posts seem otherwise?

Clearly transgender doesn't -replace- the term transsexual, but they fit under the umbrella term transgendered. That is the point I was making.

Quote from: babykittenful on April 22, 2011, 10:24:50 AM

I'm sorry you are sorry, but I can't help but to see this post as harsh. Are you really getting into the "My pain is bigger then yours" to explain how you are more legitimate then other people? 

<snip>

I see myself as a person who's life is made miserable because it's mind seems to want to make war to the very body that support it's life. Being transsexual goes very deeply against my values of being as independent as I can from the bindings of our modern civilization, living in sync with my environment and in the respect of my body. 

Unfortunately there seems to be a "pecking order" in the transgendered community some people still believe in i.e. post-op TS stealth/passing > post-op TS not passing> non-op passing etc etc. I've seen it used 2-3 times already in this thread about why -we should listen to them-.

And I think we all know the feeling of; our mind being at war with our bodies, it's what being transgender involves at it's core. And yes, everyone has to come up with their own unique way of resolving it. I'm not sure why some post-op TS's feel this need to exclude themselves from "us", like they don't or never had this same war inside them or fought this same fight in their own way? How they argue transsexual is NOT also being transgendered (a subset under the term TG). Just because you feel you have won the war, doesn't mean you are cured of "transgender" like it's some disease..

Unfortunately it's been like this for a long time, though not as common as it used to be, but sadly isn't likely to ever end. And because of this infighting and people refusing to accept definitions etc, it makes the concept of transgender much more confusing to the general public, many of whom want to understand it on a basic level.

Quote from: Stephe on April 22, 2011, 11:33:55 AM
OK now I am truly lost. Where did I try to exclude people from under the "umbrella term" transgendered? What I said was "transgender is: when a male wants to become a women or a female wants to become a man." I don't see how this is in contrast to the Merriam-Webster one. Doesn't imply they actually need to become one or the other, it's the -wants to- that defines the term.

I think the distinction you fail to notice here is that some of those who fall under the transgendered categories, namely, the drag queens and kings and the cross dressers, don't necessarily feel gender dysphoria and therefore don't really want to "become" of the other gender, they just "play" or "express" the other gender. They are transgendered, but they aren't transsexuals. I think that what defines transsexuals the most is the gender dysphoria associated with their birth gender. I think what some transsexuals don't like about being included in the transgendered umbrella is that they might be associated with people who don't feel the same pain as them and therefore couldn't possibly understand them.

I think that this is what JessicaR intended to say when she made that post. That is exactly the problem when you don't have a clear definition of what means what: At some point, you don't even know what message the people are trying to pass, since the words themselves have lost their meanings. I have felt genuinely hurt when I read that "If you want to live as a woman but be a man in bed.. yep, you're Transgender. DO NOT, however, suggest that folks like me should identify with you." because by using that half-baked definition, she included the closeted transsexuals and the transsexuals who don't intend to have SRS. If that is really what she meant, then it is rude and it clearly goes against the rules of this forum. But if she didn't mean to say that, this goes to prove that we desperately need the definitions and the labels, otherwise everything is chaos and people hurt each other without even wanting it.

So here's the thing, you can't convene a commitee and have the meaning of words "fixed."  Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.

Here is a pretty simple fix to the problem though: since the words don't really mean anything, throw them out.  Try just describing things as if the words didn't exist.

For instance:

Quote from: babykittenful on April 22, 2011, 10:24:50 AM
... Of course, if some magical fairy were to give me female genitals, along with the whole female body, I couldn't be happier. But right now, this is not how my body works.

...snip...

... why does a "simple lifestyle choice" hurt me so much to the point I'd want to die, when I don't even get the "lifestyle" part since I'm still closeted in fear. Right now, I don't see myself as a "cisgendered woman" with a condition. I see myself as a person who's life is made miserable because it's mind seems to want to make war to the very body that support it's life.

...snip..

I don't want to transition. I don't want to suffer anymore. But it seems like there are some things that are beyond your control in life. What will happen of me? If only I knew. Maybe therapy will help me find my way, but it seems like such a heavy weight on my shoulder I'm afraid I'll just sink and drown.

That tells me a lot more about your situation than "I'm transgendered," which tells me exactly... nothing.  Yes it's longhand and inconvenient, but trying to communicate with words that have utterly unclear meanings is pretty much infeasable, is it not?   Besides how long has this thread gone on now?  Clearly using words that don't mean anything  does NOT save time.

Quote from: Valeriedances on April 22, 2011, 01:11:56 PM
Because something is against the TOS, doesn't make it wrong to have a view different than the TOS. It just means to speak of it violates those rules set by the owner of this site.

I don't know this for sure because I don't have time to go read the ToS at the moment, but I think that was just from a list of standard terms and definitions and is not part of the ToS anyway.  Although I can just see it:

"What!? You used a word contextually inconsistent with an arbitrary definition we've assigned to an ambiguous word!?  OMG BANNED 4 LIEF!!!"

Now that would be seriously hilarious lol.

Quote from: babykittenful on April 22, 2011, 12:03:09 PM

I think that this is what JessicaR intended to say when she made that post. That is exactly the problem when you don't have a clear definition of what means what: At some point, you don't even know what message the people are trying to pass, since the words themselves have lost their meanings. I have felt genuinely hurt when I read that "If you want to live as a woman but be a man in bed.. yep, you're Transgender. DO NOT, however, suggest that folks like me should identify with you." because by using that half-baked definition, she included the closeted transsexuals and the transsexuals who don't intend to have SRS. If that is really what she meant, then it is rude and it clearly goes against the rules of this forum. But if she didn't mean to say that, this goes to prove that we desperately need the definitions and the labels, otherwise everything is chaos and people hurt each other without even wanting it.

 

  Some may benefit by recognizing the experience of others. Transsexual and Transgender are not the same.

   The subject at hand is asking if the originally posted definition is true or false. It invites opinion. If my having an opinion violates the TOS, you go right ahead and kick me out.

  I'm done with this thread...

   Don't ask me my opinion and smite me for it after...
 

Quote from: JessicaR on April 22, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
 

  Some may benefit by recognizing the experience of others. Transsexual and Transgender are not the same.

   The subject at hand is asking if the originally posted definition is true or false. It invites opinion. If my having an opinion violates the TOS, you go right ahead and kick me out.

  I'm done with this thread...

   Don't ask me my opinion and smite me for it after...

You have your right to your opinion, but we have our right to feel offended when you are directly rude to some of us. Particularly since you don't seem to have any intention of clarifying it, so we may understand what you actually intended to say.

True ONLY if someone asks me and I want to explain it quickly without getting into details. It's the easiest way to "dumb it down" for people.

Also, I have to ask. When some of you say you have a "male" or "female" brain what exactly does that mean?

I've never seen a counselor or psychiatrist for being trans, nor have I ever been diagnosed with GID so this is something I've never heard before?

(I didn't feel the need for it and it wasn't required to have a note for hormones or surgery.)

Quote from: JayUnit on April 22, 2011, 11:35:18 PM
Also, I have to ask. When some of you say you have a "male" or "female" brain what exactly does that mean?

I've never seen a counselor or psychiatrist for being trans, nor have I ever been diagnosed with GID so this is something I've never heard before?

(I didn't feel the need for it and it wasn't required to have a note for hormones or surgery.)

Some research has shown that being trans could stem from hormone exposure/lack of exposure in the womb. The way I've read it explained is that typically XY babies are exposed to a rush of androgens in the womb that "masculinize" the brain, where as the brains of XX babies are typically shielded from that rush of androgens. The role those hormones apparently play is pretty much "sexing" the brain. It could explain why transguys experience themselves as male, while transwomen experience themselves as female from very early ages.

I've also read some researching showing findings that transguys in that particular test group seemed to have somatostatin-expressing neurons (in the BSTc/bed nucleus of the stria terminalis) in the male range, while transwomen had them in the female range. This has led some researchers to hypothesize that sex is not restricted to biological sex, but that "brain-sex" is another determinant of the sex of an individual. It at least would explain why transguys feel like they're male trapped in a female body and viceversa for transwomen.

Anyways, personally I prefer the term XX male to describe myself or transguy but don't feel like it makes me any less male. As far as the definition of transgender, it's a tough one since it is so broad, but I think in a way that's a good thing. I think the term should remain inclusive rather than exclusive. The OP's description is kind of problematic, I find. Definitely really dumbed down and doesn't cover the full breadth of transgender. As far as trans rights bills, I support their using gender expression or identity, but it would be good to have something in there "non-cis," too.

I'd be curious to know the source of these studies. I have yet to fall on anything coming from a credible source that links transsexualism to biology. It seems to me like that no one wants to study the damn thing, which create a huge emptiness were psychiatrist and trans people are free to put all their suppositions.

In the end, it seems like no one knows what is such a thing as a male brain or a female brain...

No one can tell while you're alive, not without killing you in the process of finding out. They have been able to tell from study of TS women after they have died:

QuoteThe recent report from Dick Swaab and his colleagues at the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research confirms this notion [...] Swaab and colleagues examined the brains of many individuals, including homosexual men, heterosexual men and women and six male-to-female transsexuals. They found that a tiny region with the unwieldy name of the central region of the bed nucleus of the stria terininalis (BSTc) was larger in men than in women. Sexual orientation seemed irrelevant to the size of the BSTc because it was as large in homosexual men as in heterosexual men. But the BSTc of the six transsexuals was as small as that of women - about half the volume of the BSTc in other men. (Breedlove)

Breedlove, Marc. "The Chicken-and-Egg Argument as It Applies to the Brains of Transsexuals: Does It           
Matter." Psychologue (1996): n. pag. Web. 20 Nov 2009.

From a college essay I wrote.

First off, I just want to say that using the term 'transgendered' instead of transgender is cumbersome and is easily used against us. Just like saying 'coloured person' is offensive instead of saying person of colour. You might think it nitpicky but the 'ed' is suggesting that it was something that was done to you and can be removed. A person of colour can't stop being a person of colour and neither can a transgender person stop being transgender. To further demonstrate how ridiculous it is, if you were gay then you haven't been homosexualized or 'gayed', you're just simply homosexual or gay.

Transgender suggests a state of being whereas transgendered suggests that you were conditioned to be that way or brainwashed or whatever tripe a bigot wants to use against you.

Personally, I believe sex is just as much of a social construct as gender is.

http://tranarchism.com/2010/11/26/not-your-moms-trans-101/

"BODIES

Almost every Trans 101 will contain the truism "Sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears."

Gag.

Or they may say "Sex is physical, gender is socially constructed."

This simply isn't true.

Sex is no more an immutable binary than is gender. There are intersex people who are born with non-binary genitalia, as I have already mentioned. There are people with hormonal anomalies. In fact, hormone levels vary wildly within the categories of cis male and cis female. Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought "XX" and "XY" were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the "opposite" of what they though they were– that is, a 'typical' cis man can be XX, a 'normal' cis woman can be XY.

The fact is that the concept of binary sex is based on the fallacious idea that multiple sex characteristics are immutable and must always go together, when in fact many of them can be changed, many erased, and many appear independently in different combinations. "Female" in sex binary terms means having breasts, having a vagina, having a womb, not having a lot of body hair, having a high-pitched voice, having lots of estrogen, having a period, having XX chromosomes. "Male" means having a penis, not having breasts, producing sperm, having body hair, having a deep voice, having lots of testosterone, having XY chromosomes. Yet it is possible to isolate, alter, and remove many of these traits. Many of these traits do not always appear together, and before puberty and after menopause, many of them do not apply.

And what about women who get hysterectomies? Or who have had mastectomies for reasons related to breast cancer? Are they not women?

What about a soldier whose dick gets blown off by a mine? Is he not a man?

The fallacies of binding identity to bodies, which are fragile, changeable things, subject to injury, mutilation, maiming, decay and ultimate destruction, should by now be clear.

Sex is as much a social construct as gender, as much subject to self identification, and besides all that, quite easy to modify. Surgical and hormonal techniques are only becoming more sophisticated. If there ever was a need to consider biology destiny, that time is surely past.

The entire concept of "sex" is simply a way of attaching something social– gender– to bodies. This being the case, I believe the most sensible way to look at the question of sex now is this: a male body is a body belonging to a male– that is, someone who identifies as male. A female body is a body belonging to a female– that is, someone who identifies as female. Genderqueer bodies belong to folks who are genderqueer, androgynous bodies belong to androgynes, and so forth, and so on.

This is why I question the value of phrases like "man in a woman's body" or "male to female." Who is to say we ever were the "opposite sex?" Personally I will never again describe myself as "born female." I was born a trans male and my years of confusion were due to being forcefully and repeatedly told that I was something else. This body is not a woman's. It is mine. Neither am I trapped in it.

None of what I say here is to minimize the necessity of surgery. Many trans people do experience body dysphoria. Many of us do seek hormones, surgery, and other body modifications. But the point is that, while such modifications may be necessary for our peace of mind, they are not necessary to make us "real men" or "real women" or "real" whatevers. We're plenty real right now, thank you."

Quote from: babykittenful on April 23, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
I'd be curious to know the source of these studies. I have yet to fall on anything coming from a credible source that links transsexualism to biology. It seems to me like that no one wants to study the damn thing, which create a huge emptiness were psychiatrist and trans people are free to put all their suppositions.

In the end, it seems like no one knows what is such a thing as a male brain or a female brain...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

Of course, it's a hypothesis, but that doesn't mean it doesn't merit attention. Every discovery begins somewhere. It is interesting at the very least and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't far from being part of the cause. Of course, I hope that more research will be done, obviously, but it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the study and pretend it must be bogus.

@Lachlann

Thanks for posting this, it summarizes a lot of what I often think about when it comes to sex/gender. I similarly suspect that the modern notions of sex are at the very least influenced by traditional perception. Of course, science traditionally tells us that XX is female and XY is male, that males have certain biological characteristics while females have certain biological characteristics. But if we look at the world around us, there are species like the parrotfish that change sex throughout the course of their life, species that impregnate themselves and so how can we really apply sex to them? Just as sexuality among over 500 species that have been studied is extremely varied, so does sex seem to be among many as well. Even among human cultures, sex has not always been a binary and I wonder if modern western tradition hadn't played such a huge role in the developmpent of the sciences how it might have been developed otherwise considering the amount of human variation. I also think the modern west, culturally, puts less emphasis on the mind and more on the body itself.

Now, personally, I'm not the kind of guy to just believe things only because I want to believe them. For me science is above all when it comes to any sort of speculation about ourselves and the world around us, however, I don't think that bars me from wondering if science, like all aspects of human doings, is not hindered to some extent by language. If it is not, to an extent, affected by the traditional notion of the binary. And I think the sciences are actually taking a look at themselves in that respect, especially as they continue to make inroads into human reproduction. Just last year or the year before there was research being done showing that female stem cells could be coaxed into "thinking" themselves male and so create, for the first time, female sperm. This was also done with male stem cells and producing male eggs. If this research continues it could mean a solution for infertile couples and same-sex couples. So what do we do with "male" and "female" once females can produce sperm and males eggs? Of course, people were in an uproar about it, but personally I'd love to live in a world where that sort of thing is available, and I'd love to see how that begins to change people's perspective of the sex binary.

QuoteThis is why I question the value of phrases like "man in a woman's body" or "male to female." Who is to say we ever were the "opposite sex?" Personally I will never again describe myself as "born female." I was born a trans male and my years of confusion were due to being forcefully and repeatedly told that I was something else. This body is not a woman's. It is mine. Neither am I trapped in it.

None of what I say here is to minimize the necessity of surgery. Many trans people do experience body dysphoria. Many of us do seek hormones, surgery, and other body modifications. But the point is that, while such modifications may be necessary for our peace of mind, they are not necessary to make us "real men" or "real women" or "real" whatevers. We're plenty real right now, thank you."

The above two paragraphs really reflect my thoughts on a few things. The first reflects what I've been trying to do for a while, which is explain myself without saying "I was born female." While I recognise the reality of my body, I (and this perhaps where I clash with modern western perspectives) also consider my mind to be more of an indication of my "sex" than my body. I've come to prefer the terms transguy or XX male because they don't necessarily presuppose a female beginning. But simply that I'm a "different kind" of male. Of course, that is still problematic, but if it comes down to explaining myself, I prefer to do so with those terms.

The other thing is I differ slightly with what's said about not being trapped in an "alien" body. Externally the body is associated with "female" and even if I tell myself it can't be female because I am not female, that doesn't change the fact that I do feel trapped in a body that my mind thinks it shouldn't have ended up with, and which I absolutely hate being attached to. It might not be necessary to change it in order to be a "real man," but it's certainly preferable and it certainly makes me saner.

Gender and sex both describe outwardly perceptible aspects, sex just being something more specific.  The idea that they are separate things is not true, even though I hear that said a lot.  They are interweaved- you would not have gender if there were no sex.

It's interesting too how the usage of the word gender has developed.  I think it means something different now than it did even a year ago.  It is becoming the dominant word in it's usage in the world, and sex is becoming more of a subcategory- which is actually the opposite of how the word gender was intended to be used in it's modern form.  This change actually causes words/phrases like "transgender" and "gender identity" to make more sense when they used to be misnomers, at least in application to my experience.

The words are so frustrating though.  One person may be offended by "transgendered" with the ed on the end, while another thinks "transgender" sounds silly.  One person doesn't think those words apply to them, while another, who's gone through a very similar experience and is in a very similar place, does.  Another person is okay with "trans woman" but hates "transwoman" without a space, while another is okay with both, and another hates both.  It's a veritable minefield.