No, I don’t think I was whooshed. I was explaining why I don’t think a person born with a full set of male hormones and male brain structures can have a “female brain” or it’s metaphorical equivalent. Obviously, people vary tremendously in respect to gender, but I don’t think “female brain” is a valid metaphor, on the face of it. My brain remains open on the topic of where trangenderism comes from.
Pretty much.
For the sake of argument, I’m going to grant that we are created by God (not that I believe that, but it makes for an interesting point of discussion).
Given that assumption, I absolutely agree with you. I am the gender god made me. Wouldn’t it logically be not only acceptable, but even necessary to use hormone therapy and surgery to change my physical sex to match my gender? You could even say that if God chose my gender, it would be a sin not to do everything in my power to make my body and social standing match was God intended for it to be. By have my physical sex reassigned, I am actually doing God’s work.
I had never considered that before. I may have to reconsider my feelings about religion.
Thank you. That’s very interesting, and the increased risks of some of the diseases must add to the difficulty in the decision-making process, which must be unimaginably hard in the first place. I am greatly impressed by the courage in all of the stories that I have read here. You are all incredible women (and men if there are any FTM transsexuals here; I don’t mean to leave anyone out, I just have only seen stories from women).
I’m not sure that God needs the help.
In your first post about Angelina and in your reply to Bricker here, you seem to be suggesting that it was a bad idea for her to become a woman (or became a bad idea) because she later became a lesbian.
But as has been stated in just about every thread on this board about transsexuals, the two facts have little to do with each other.
Transsexuality is about who you want to be (physically), not who you want to be with. If Angelina never told you she regretted no longer being a man, you can’t assume she did no matter who she went out with.
Your argument might have more weight if everyone were born perfect, and no one ever came out of the womb with spina bifida, Down’s Syndrome, a tail, schizophrenia or missing limbs. Do you claim such people should receive no medical or technological intervention?
If you don’t, then you must agree God allows imperfections in his creations that humans may repair.
And in that case I would ask you why you would suggest it’s wrong for transsexuals to correct what they and the entire medical community perceive as an imperfection in themselves, namely a mental gender/physical gender divergence.
Well?
You make it sound as somehow the fact that she was a lesbian is at odds with the fact that she was transsexual. There is nothing inconsistent in being a transsexual lesbian. In my experience, somewhere between 20% and 40% of transwomen are lesbians – myself included.
It is true that in the past some gay men had sex changes in order to be able to have socially acceptable sex with men; such sex changes were ill-considered and almost universally led to tragedy. However, this is not and never has been the primary reason for people to seek reassignment, and you err if you think that even a small fraction of transsexuals seek reassignment in order to become straight.
I don’t want to waste your time by repeating other people’s posts, but if you’ve read what’s been said about it, I think it’s a pretty appropriate metaphor since the brains of MTF transsexuals are actually female in terms of their structures.
A more accurate way of putting this is that there is a particular structure in the brain which has been known for years to exhibit sexual dimorphism (that is, it varies in character and that variance is well-correlated to biologic sex). There is evidence that this structure is more likely to exhibit the characteristics associated with the female dimorph than the male dimorph in male-to-female transsexuals, and weaker evidence that it is more likely to exhibit the characteristics of the male dimorph than the female dimorph in female-to-male transsexuals.
The exact function of this structure is not known, but based on its location and the best hypotheses on the functions of nearby and similar structures, it likely has to do with base emotional response, sexuality and mating, or other “primal instincts”. The best scientific hypothesis at this time is that this structure is the seat of gender (or psychological sex), that it comes in two forms (which we can call “male” and “female”), that there is a high degree of correlation between the form exhibited and the chromosonal sex of the individual in question, and that when that correlation fails, the individual is transsexual.
Further evidence may tend to either prove or disprove any of these hypotheses, but at the moment this is the best science has to offer. Anyone forwarding a theory that conflicts with the evidence supporting these hypotheses is, at the very least, obliged to explain how his or her theory reconciles with these data, or at least explain why they are discounting this data.
I gotta admit that I was totally shocked by the fact that I have a three page thread in the pit ripping me for what I posted.
I actually thought that what I said was pretty straightforward. I’ll repeat it, but I’ll try to restate it somewhat.
He was born a man. He will die a man. If the genes ring up the old XY, that’s male and there is nothing that we can do about it, at least not at this point in time. The fact that he has had surgery, dresses like a woman, acts like a woman and calls himself a woman does not make him a woman.
As Abe Lincoln once said:
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. "
Well, assuming you don’t buy the Teiresias story, He doesn’t seem to be doing much gender reassignment by miracle these days.
Got a question for you, though: are you now and have you always been exactly what He expects you to be? If you think you are and have been, I have some interesting information for you from His Word. If not, how do you figure the changes you have made or need to make are legitimate, and the ones that Kaitlin, KellyM, et al., are making/have made, are not?
Seriously? Then you weren’t thinking very hard about what you posted. Look: restating your previous post doesn’t accomplish anything unless you’d like somebody to Pit you again. 
What we’ve been discussing here, in part, is what makes a person a man or a woman. According to you, it’s the chromosomes. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m not sure what makes the chromosomes the most important thing.
Basic biological design is the best way I can think of to phrase it. We can’t get much more fundamental than that (yet).
Okay, you’re in Great Debates. You’ve stated (albeit offensively, the first time) a premise: basic biological gender is established by the chromosomes, and is unchangeable. At least five Dopers of high reputation have stated their personal experiences as being otherwise.
Defend your premise, with cites. Explain logically why it has to be true.
Nobody’s arguing that XY codes for maleness and XX for femaleness, in terms of sex – except for the odd cases when they don’t, or do incompletely. But how does that result in “Joe was born a boy baby, grew into a man, and cannot change that, even if he feels like he is a woman inside”?
There’s nothing wrong with holding a contrarian view (though expressing it in way calculated to insult people is definitely wrong). But if you hold one, you need to make your case: What about maleness/femaleness is so inherent in genetics that an interior psychological sense to the contrary has no impact on it?
We’re talking about human beings here, not non-interchangeable parts for a Ford or Toyota – they are composed of body and something else: mind, soul, spirit, whatever name you care to tack on it. How does the body trump the spirit in this, but not in other things (such as sexual orientation)?
You’ve made an assertion, now defend it: Put up or shut up.
I’m in agreement with you, but I’m definitely not willing to go that far. The mind is not something totally separate from the body.
Welcome to Great Debates. Now, justify this position, especially considering the situation of so-called “AIS females”: women who, due to an enzyme deficiency, have XY chromosomes but appear fully female externally (internally, they have no uterus, and vestigial streak testes usually imbedded in the abdominal wall instead of ovaries). Most people consider AIS females to be female; your position declares them to be male.
Agreed: we’re an integrated whole, consciousness and physiology working together to produce a complete individual. I’d be inclined to say that that’s because we were intended to be composed in that way – but that’s grist for a whole different debate (though the question of why a transgendered person doesn’t “match” in mind vs. body may make it germane here). Let us not hijack Satyagrahi’s thread, though – if you want to present a premise for debate in another thread, I’m game.
I’m wondering what your opinion is, Clothahump, and an individual who is born with a normal vulva, clitoris and vagina, no penis or testicles and is raised as a girl. She is quite happy being a girl - a girly girl, even, with pick tutus and pretend makeup and wants a pony for her birthday. At puberty, she begins to get breasts, goes shopping with her mom for bras, gets excited waiting for her period to come…
Only it never does.
Genetic testing reveals that this individual has a chromosomal makeup of XY. This person does not have a uterus, and in fact has a pair of undeveloped masses of some sort that may be rudimentary testicles inside the abdomen. They are very small, and aren’t secreting testosterone, which is why this person’s features have not masculinized, and why breasts have developed. Yet there are no eggs, no fallopian tubes, and no uterus for a child to develop, so reproduction is quite out of the question. The “vagina” is in fact a deformed scrotum, and the “clitoris” a shrunken penis.
Is this person a boy? Do we take away her tutus and her pony books and replace them with overalls and drill bits? Do we encourage her to date men or women? If she finds men sexually attractive, is she “gay”? (She has a functional vagina, remember, it just doesn’t lead to a cervix and uterus.)
This isn’t something out of science fiction, it happens with alarming frequency. Most cases aren’t discovered until pubery, when menarche simply doesn’t begin. Only then do parents and doctors start wondering what’s wrong with their little girls.
It seems to me to withstand far more scientific rigor to state that the XY chromosomal pair is strongly *correlated *with the expression of maleness, but does not *cause *it. Male sex organs are created in the womb if there is testoserone present. This is true whether the fetus is XY or (more rarely, but it happens) XX. We still don’t know what causes the psychological state of maleness, but the XY chromosomal pairing is strongly correlated to that as well. Other factors may include nurturance, in utero and early childhood chemical or hormonal exposure and “something else” that may be termed spirit, soul, or “we dunno yet.”
Remember, our first 5 weeks in the uterus, we all have the same parts. Only then do boys start becoming boys (most of them are XY, but not all) and girls becoming girls (most of them are XX, but not all).
uhh… I have no idea what that meant. “about” is what I intended to type. Weird.