One of the major reasons people like us face general suspicion and hostility from the mainstream public is because people tend to have certain views as to what makes a person a bona-fide male and a bona-fide female.

Radical - ultra-light-headed -  feminists like Janice Raymond and Mary Daly argue that there is no such thing as 'changing your sex'.  Raymond argues in her book The Transsexual Empire: and the making of the she-male, that a person's gender is derived solely from their chromosomes, if you have XX chromosomes then you are female, however, if you possess XY chromosomes then you are male.   Raymond and Daly take a very reductionist view of sex and gender, according to them FTMs even after top and bottom surgery, and having a patriarchal beard and a basso profondo voice, they are still female, still women.

Most people however, find that approach to gender too cold and too narrow.   To most people Raymond's and Daly's definition of gender is far too rigid and restrictive and doesn't allow for thoughts, feelings, emotions and an individual person's sense of themselves.   These people think that you are female if you can get pregnant and/or bring a baby to term.  Women who have lost this ability through accident or disease are of course still thought of as female.  The thinking goes in their case that if everything had proceeded normally developmentally, or had not been destroyed through accident or disease then infertile women would have had the ability to have children.
While this approach is more humane that Raymond's and Daly's, it still isn't very supportive to transsexuals/->-bleeped-<-, as transgender women have never had the potential to become pregnant or not if they wished.  Of course it also strongly implies that if there remains the slightest possibility of an FTM getting pregnant, that they are female despite appearances to the contrary.
I tend to think the reason that many transsexuals etc have put such weight behind srs, breasts development, facial feminisation surgery, tracheal shaves, orchiectomies etc  is because they are conscious at a certain level of never having possessed the ability to become pregnant and they hope to downplay this by undergoing as much physical feminisation as possible.   Their subconscious thought processes might go something like this: 'Ok, I can never have a baby, but I've got breasts and a working if temperamental vagina and I have lost the ability permanently to grow any facial hair.  Don't these three things cancel out the fact that I can never become pregnant?'    There is nothing wrong with wanting to undergo as much physical feminisation as realistically possible.   I just think that it is interesting and instructive to suggest where complete srs people perhaps get their motivation from.

Because most people consciously or unconsciously believe that female = the possibility of pregnancy; male = never becoming pregnant.  FTMs have to go down the hysterectomy route, because a male can never under any circumstances become pregnant.   I don't want to say too much about this as my knowledge of this area is slight. 

I don't know if I have a female mind-set or if I have a male mind-set.   I only know that the way I dress, the things I do, and the fact that I much prefer to be addressed as 'she' and her' etc suggests that I do have feminine thought processes to a large extent.    If you think that you are a girl/woman or a  boy/man then you are!

The main reason why cis-gendered people don't want to believe that a person can change sex is that it hints strongly that if it can be done then perhaps a person - them - could be forced to undergo this involuntarily.    Beside this people who aren't gender confused simply have no idea why a genetic male would consider themselves female, and what people can't understand they tend to dismiss from their minds or view in certain cases as a perversion or mental illness.

So do you think that it also kind of implies that if (as an ethnic Asian) I think I am, or if I want to be a Caucasian white person, I can then say I'm Caucasian and white?

Quote from: apple pie on November 22, 2011, 07:48:00 PM
So do you think that it also kind of implies that if (as an ethnic Asian) I think I am, or if I want to be a Caucasian white person, I can then say I'm Caucasian and white?

A person should be able to have whatever cosmetic surgery they can afford.

One of these days science will get to the point where being a furry will be possible, and you'll see people walking about with wolf heads. I don't have an issue with this at all, it's who they want to be.

QuoteThe main reason why cis-gendered people don't want to believe that a person can change sex is that it hints strongly that if it can be done then perhaps a person - them - could be forced to undergo this involuntarily.

Well I think the main two fears are:

1. Being "tricked" (as they would see it) into being gay by their feeling an attraction toward a trans person.
2. That we are just fetishist deviants who would molest people in bathrooms if given the chance.

The devil is in the details.

Truth is, male and female are exactly whatever you say they are - I think they're terms invented by humans to define things and sometimes box us in.

They should call us transanotomicals.

Edit: also, that gene theory is flawed at it's core- what to make of a person born with only "X"

Quote from: EmmaM on November 22, 2011, 08:56:32 PM
The devil is in the details.

Truth is, male and female are exactly whatever you say they are - I think they're terms invented by humans to define things and sometimes box us in.

They should call us transanotomicals.

Edit: also, that gene theory is flawed at it's core- what to make of a person born with only "X"

Or what about XXY?  That's my biggest argument against those who seem to want to rigidly enforce the binary gender paradigm.  If you define gender based on genetics, there are people who don't fit the binary.  If you define it based on ability to become pregnant, then menopause or a radical hysterectomy becomes a de-facto gender change.  If you base it on anatomical appearance, there are people with ambiguous genitalia who do not fit the binary. Etc.  No matter how you try to define binary gender, you wind up with somebody who, for whatever reason, just does not fit the available pigeonholes.

We, as a society, just need to grow up and realize that gender should really not be that big of a deal among normal well-adjusted individuals. As long as we are treating each other with respect, it shouldn't matter whether a given stranger happens to be male, female, or something else.

You certainly can't define gender by genetics simply because XXY (and variations) exist. You can't scientifically say that there is only male and female either, because of all the variations of intersex. That's just plain, simple, facts of nature there.

I think that most people in western cultures do define gender by genitalia ... and even the medical world for a very long time has wanted to put even intersex babies into pink or blue by performing surgery to "fix" them. The very first big question of life in our culture is, "Is it a boy or a girl?" So culturally and socially it's been exclusively male or female for a very long time.

After what's between your legs, most people will start to define gender by looks, mannerisms and even things a person likes. While it's loosened up some and gender roles are more expansive than they once were, it's still very much ingrained in society. Why is it that trans persons usually want so badly to "pass"? It's just to be more accepted in their preferred gender role (as seen by the rest of society).

Gender "fluid" people are still the minority - just like intersex people are a minority. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I believe the world is full of variation when it comes to both sex and gender and all the ways people and society view both. So on an individual level it can be as unique as a fingerprint. On a cultural and social level, it's a lot more defined.

Go ask a little kid. They give good answers to these questions.

Quote from: Lily on November 22, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
A person should be able to have whatever cosmetic surgery they can afford.

One of these days science will get to the point where being a furry will be possible, and you'll see people walking about with wolf heads. I don't have an issue with this at all, it's who they want to be.

But what if someone wants to be a non-op Caucasian white person? Suppose I just "know" in my head I'm a Caucasian white person but don't do any surgery to make myself look like one.

And I don't agree that because there's XXY and X and all these other ones, one cannot define and use the words "male" and "female". It only means you can't make it completely binary.

In terms of biological sex, "male" is the traditional label for XY and "female" is the traditional label for XX. Just because there is XXY and XXYY and all those other ones out there, doesn't mean I can't say the biological sex of an XY guy or an XY girl is male.

Now, we use the words "male" and "female" in a broader sense than that. But even we often use terms such as "biological male" or "genetic female" when we want to emphasize that they are XY or XX, instead of avoiding the male and female terms altogether, so I'd say that even we largely have the same concept as others who aren't trans. We even use "MtF" and "FtM" all the time without even the word "biological" attached to them.

And it can't really be denied that for most people in the world, those who are XY fully think they are "male" and those who are XX fully think they are "female". So while it may not be fully binary, it is quite close to being so in practice. And this approximate binariness is also why so many of us are transitioning to male or female, isn't it?

Quote from: Lily on November 22, 2011, 08:24:54 PM
A person should be able to have whatever cosmetic surgery they can afford.

One of these days science will get to the point where being a furry will be possible, and you'll see people walking about with wolf heads. I don't have an issue with this at all, it's who they want to be.

That would be awesome. I could get my shark implants I need so much. LOL

Quote from: insideontheoutside on November 22, 2011, 10:15:34 PM
You certainly can't define gender by genetics simply because XXY (and variations) exist. You can't scientifically say that there is only male and female either, because of all the variations of intersex. That's just plain, simple, facts of nature there.

Bleh. I look at the bone structure, musculature, and sexual organs. That is someones birth sex.

My shark hates your dragon.

Quote from: apple pie on November 23, 2011, 12:41:21 AM
But what if someone wants to be a non-op Caucasian white person? Suppose I just "know" in my head I'm a Caucasian white person but don't do any surgery to make myself look like one.

You are who you say you are.

Quote from: Felix on November 23, 2011, 01:11:44 AM
My shark hates your dragon.

There is but one shark.

Last night I spent a few hours in the pleasant company of someone I now regard as family, who is Intersex.

A chromosome test is pointless, because they exhibit mosaicism.  Depending on where the sample is taken on their skin it can come up with a variety of results; X, XX,XY,XXY, all on the same person.  They don't identify as male or female, but as both.

It really boils down to your most basic, intense self-identity.  Every other description has exceptions that disprove it.

Quote from: apple pie on November 23, 2011, 12:41:21 AM
But what if someone wants to be a non-op Caucasian white person? Suppose I just "know" in my head I'm a Caucasian white person but don't do any surgery to make myself look like one.

If that's what you identify as, then that's what you are. You'd get a ton of weird looks and people who just don't understand, but that wouldn't change the fact that you identify as such and nobody is able to change that.

The problem with the likes of Raymond, Jefferies and such, is they fear the undermining of their own developing powerbase by transgender. While they claim to be seeking and supporting the equality of women, in opportunities and society, in reality, they seek to maintain the division of sex, to entrench the very factors which women most complained aboiut and use these to dominate.

It's called nazism and should be treated with the same disgust and revulsion that all nazis and fascists deserve.

But the question here, what is male/female is one which I know I've thought about for a long time and sure others have as well.

If we are to reduce women to machines to breed and bear children, then in reality, women are nothing. This is what is really behind the notion:

Quotethat you are female if you can get pregnant and/or bring a baby to term.

I find this deeply insulting. More so in that I, coming from where it does, I don't find it surprising.

I married my wife about 30 or so years ago. To reduce that entire relationship to the function of some of her internal organs, insults her, it insults me. It insults my relationship. It insults our feeling.

It insults humanity. But coming from nazis, I don't find it surprising. That such scum is tolerated, is given any sort of platform in our supposedly civilised world, that such openly racist and nasty nazi scum should be permitted to wander around like normal people, is deeply disturbing.

Have we learnt nothing form the last 80 years? Have the countless people who have died, because of nazi ideology, in Europe, In  Central and South America, In Sri Lanka and Burma, Cambodia, N Korea, Palestine, have these people died for nothing?

Our lives, those of us who are normal and not nazi, have an intrinsic value, based upon the relationships we each form. Family, friends, lovers, confidants. These are important to each of us.

We present ourselves in a manner that is comfortable for each of us. We may have our hair cut very short, or kept very long. We dress as we choose. Our personalities, our values, these reflect who we see ourselves as and our place in the world.

If someone takes advantage of surgical alteration to change part of their appearance, that is a reflection of how they see themselves. No transgender I am aware of, is under any illusions about their limitations. No transgender, seriously believes she can produce a baby or inseminate someone with sperm. We each, like everyone else, seek to establish relationships with others, to be accepted by others for who we are.

These nazis, Jefferies, Raymond, Greer and so on, they seek to dictate to people, the purpose of life itself. They are not just wrong, they are evil.

Quote from: MarinaM on November 22, 2011, 08:56:32 PM
The devil is in the details.

Truth is, male and female are exactly whatever you say they are - I think they're terms invented by humans to define things and sometimes box us in.

They should call us transanotomicals.

Edit: also, that gene theory is flawed at it's core- what to make of a person born with only "X"

This is actually pretty clever. I would totally call myself transanatomical. I would sound like some cool transformer.

It occured to me this morning, that the way I worte those points in #16, it implied that I was claiming that we, here on Susans' and such, should be ignoring these evil people.

I strongly believe that these people shouldn't be given a platform, but that platform has been given to them by those who have appointed them to their apparently accademic positions.

It has been demostrated, over and over, on these pages and elsewhere, that holding acedemic office or qualification is frequently misued to give creedance to otherwise unjustifiable political views.

But we do and should discuss these things on Susans' and elsewhere. We should never be silent. We can and should stand up for ourselves and our fellows.

I sincerely apologise to members and Susan if I seemed to be implying otherwise.

Outside of Iran, I don't think forced transition is a serious concern for very many people, nor why people are bigots or respond badly to others.

I also think it's useful to distinguish sex and gender.  I'm talking gender below.

I think much of the problem - certainly not all though - is just plain religious misogyny and similar factors.  In this, a woman's place is the home, to be subservient to her male, etc. You see this with religious groups sometimes - they'll use words like "covering" and "headship" to refer to a woman as being, essentially, less than a man.  They'll talk about how wonderful that position is (many women in those settings will too), how it is Christ-like, etc.  They also talk about the "fundamental" differences between men and woman and the need for both in relationships ("Every kid needs a father", "women are gatherers, men hunters", "men are visually stimulated, women are emotionally connected", "men are thinkers, women feelers", "women are good at cooking, men at working", etc).  But because there is a religious overtone to this - religious commandments for men and women - someone who defies those commandments is defying God.  They are disrespecting God in these people's eyes.  If someone might be able to say, "I'm not what you thought I am", anyone could choose to not accept where God put them - and that's ignoring divine creation, the purpose you existed, etc, etc.  Of course I think this is hogwash (theologically and biologically).  It's also the same problem gay people have - they aren't doing what they are supposed to do according to God.  Men are supposed to pair with women according to some.  Even non-religious people have been influenced by religion often.  It's the elephant in the room in debates about gay marriage and trans rights.

The religious group of bigots and those influenced by them likes clear cut commandments from God, with no gray area or problems.  So gender is black and white to them.  Not about genitals necessarily, but certainly not able to be changed from what your parents told you that you were when you were a toddler!  If they painted your nursery blue, you're a boy.  Pink, you're a girl.  Your genitals are only slightly related to that.

I also think the other factor at work - in the second group of people the OP mentioned - is a desire to retain "purity" within some circles.  There is fear that trans women in particular are really men seeking to infiltrate the woman gender.  It's really strange to even write about because it's so absurd - but it seems to be a real dynamic.  In reality, they are reinforcing the idea of strict gender roles while often (but not always) being officially against limitations of women by society.  Strange.