We Are Not Defined By Our Genitalia

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-are-not-defined-by-our-genitalia.html
9/4/11
Monica Roberts


I've said this multiple times on this blog and will continue to say it until you peeps embed this point in your brain cells.   You need to focus on what's between a transperson's ears, not their legs.

I'm tired of repeating this obvious point ad nauseum, but if that's what it takes for you recalcitrant gay and straight cis people and elements of the trans community to get it, so be it.   

It's none of your business what's between mine or any transperson's legs unless you wish to get intimate with us or have a long term relationship leading to permanent coupling.   

But when people accept you totally, but you find  they won't consider a relationship with you because of it, then what do you do? Sometimes you can talk until you are blue in the face and it doesn't  make a blind bit of difference.   

Karen.

Maybe the person who isn't transsexual (ie. the blog author) would do better to focus on the fact that some of us are rather content NOT to be lumped in with whoever the author chooses to identity with. 

The author needs to accept that some of us DO believe in binary constructs, DO NOT believe in the in-between (ie. non-op) status and DO understand that society grasps the medical condition a whole lot easier when one is following through on medical intervention to address the condition.

I guess they needed to write that one to take a break from their usual mode of race-baiting and deeping THAT divide...

Original biological categories for sex: female, male, neuter, hermaphrodite. Based on the capacity to produce male or female sex cells for the purpose of reproduction. Problem - post-operative women of transsexual history would be defined as "neuter" under this system. (As would any infertile person.)

Word evolved in definition to categorize humans based on the appearance of their genitals at or just after birth. Intersex replaced hermaphrodite and neuter is dropped (considered offensive). Problem - post-operative women of transsexual history would be defined as "male" under this system.

Word evolved in definition to categorize humans based on their XY or XX chromosomes. Intersex definition expanded to include non-XX or XY chromosomes. Problem - post-operative women of transsexual history would be defined as "male" under this system. (As would CAIS women though often some concessions are made given their entirely female appearance.) Many countries in the world use either this definition or the previous one - i.e. changing your gender marker is not possible.

Word evolved in definition to categorize humans based on their current sex organs. Surgical approximations accepted as well as "natural-born" genitals. Problem - post-operative women of transsexual history would be defined as "male" pre-surgery under this system. Though some find this acceptable. Further problems - people who have had their genitals damaged or destroyed lose their sex status under this system (example: boy soldier steps on a landmine and ceases to be male) - concessions are regularly made in these circumstances undermining the integrity of the system. Intersex children have been historically (and in some places still are) mutilated against their will based on this system. Some countries use this definition including Canada and much of the US.

Word evolved in definition to categorize humans based on the sum of their sex-differentiated parts. Problems - concept complex and currently in flux. Most important sex-differentiated part (brain) is only just starting to be analyzed in medical science. Much of Europe now uses this definition in some form.

Alternative: Word evolved in definition to categorize humans based on their chosen sex identity. Problems - loses any connection to biological categories and concept currently in flux. Possible legal problems and abuses with this system. No countries use this definition to my knowledge.

Language is fun! Also, messy.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 04, 2011, 08:48:32 AM
The author needs to accept that some of us DO believe in binary constructs, DO NOT believe in the in-between (ie. non-op) status and DO understand that society grasps the medical condition a whole lot easier when one is following through on medical intervention to address the condition.

Susan's is an inclusive site, there are people here in our community who identify outside of the binary.

Zythyra (News Admin)

Quote from: Zythyra on September 04, 2011, 12:04:00 PM
Susan's is an inclusive site, there are people here in our community who identify outside of the binary.

Zythyra (News Admin)

hence my use of the phrase 'some of us' in my pointing out the marginalization and stifling of opinions that that particular blog author tries to do in almost every post that is not otherwise on some diatribe that continues the racial divisions in society...

If someone wants to be content filling a role without surgery, then so be it...but they need not chastise those of us that want to continue to point out the differences in their choice of lifestyle contrasted with those who sought medical intervention to fully remedy a medical problem.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on September 04, 2011, 12:15:52 PM
hence my use of the phrase 'some of us' in my pointing out the marginalization and stifling of opinions that that particular blog author tries to do in almost every post that is not otherwise on some diatribe that continues the racial divisions in society...

If someone wants to be content filling a role without surgery, then so be it...but they need not chastise those of us that want to continue to point out the differences in their choice of lifestyle contrasted with those who sought medical intervention to fully remedy a medical problem.

I would hope that I and other non-op people would never do such a thing. If the mods don't react first I certainly would.

But for many of us, the opportunities are simply not there. That doesn't just mean financial, there are other, equally insurmountable blocks that many need to face.

If the gate keepers would lighten up a bit and stop trying to define what is RLE, for example, social attitudes may see a change much more quickly and more profound.