Thank you for mentioning this. It always surprises me when people begin insisting upon people having a certain chromosome pattern in order to present themselves as a particular sex or gender when the vast majority of individuals have no proof as to their chromosomal pattern. I presume that I possess an XX pattern as I am a pretty average biological female who does not possess the characteristics associated with Turner’s syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, or other unusual chromosomal patterns, but I’ve never had a Barr body test or any other test that would verify that I really have those two Xs and nothing else. That’s because the subject has never really come up. No one has ever demanded that I prove that I’m a genetic female. Such things do not matter in daily life, and those who claim that they are a crucial factor in determining how others should be treated by society are just trying to make their personal prejudices sound scientific.
It’s possible, if unlikely, that I could possess some rare and previously undiscovered genetic combination that causes me to look and function exactly like an average XX woman without actually having the XX pattern. If I were suddenly to discover that this was the case, I’d still consider myself to be a “real woman”…and I wouldn’t put up with anyone else saying otherwise.
There’s nothing there about you having to be attracted to a bio-female who identifies as a man. You can be attracted to whoever you like for whatever reason you like. But why should you get to tell someone that, no matter how they feel about themselves, they’re not a man just because they possess characteristics you find unattractive?
Stitch, keep your comments re “AIDS infected faggot[s]” OFF these boards. I am quite sure you can phrase your opinions more civilly, and a failure to do so in the future will likely result in your banning.
• Would this person be gay?
—Technically, yes and no. Inside, in her brain, she is a straight woman. But socially, let’s face it, most people would consider her to be living as a gay man, till she could have surgery.
• Would it be dishonest of this person to present themselves to a heterosexual male potential partner as a heterosexual female?
—It would be hugely unwise, as we have seen. Certainly not something I would ever have done, but I have always been very circumspect.
• Would it still be dishonest after sex-reassignment-surgery?
—You tell me. That’s been the $64,000 question of my life.
OK, I was done with this thread, but as long as we are debating how to treat those who choose to define their gender differently -
In the invaluable column News of the Weird for the week of March 2, 2003, and also from Medical Editor Ceila Hall in the Daily Telegraph of 1-16-03:
Exactly what would be the respectful, politically correct way to address this person’s concerns? Obviously s/he has chosen a gender identity that includes fear of cervical cancer, even with no cervix, just as others choose to be female even in the absence of a vulva.
Consensus seems to be that we should regard some people as women based on what they report to be their feelings - does the same hold true for hermaphrodites?
If it is a symptom of narrow-minded bigotry to say, “No, you can’t be a girl, because you have a penis”, is it also wrong to refuse to supply this poor person a Pap smear on the purely technical grounds that he doesn’t have a cervix?
I don’t think you get it Shodan. This isn’t about people who choose to define their gender differently. It’s about the definitions simply not fitting. Definitions, as you note, are not up to individuals to decide. But when a definition doesn’t fit, then we need to either change it or make a new one. The definitions are supposed to be what’s flexible, not reality. Definitions are reflections of reality, not boundries of reality. Calling a person with XX chromosomes(which, for all we know, could describe Arajho), female brain structure(which, again, could describe Arajho), and a penis who is attracted to straight males a “homosexual male” sounds a lot like imposing a definition that doesn’t fit.
If the person in your cite truly believes they are a hermaphrodite(probably best to have psychological evaluations to help establish this), then gender(not reassignment, that tends to evoke one OR the other type scenarios, perhaps gender addition?) surgery is the correct remedy. In the meantime, this person needs some help, possibly psychological, to understand that the physical dangers that they fear are not threats to them.
Your final question is a false dilemma. The situations are NOT analgous. One is a sociological denial based upon a physical characteristic and the other is a physical denial based upon a physical characteristic. A better analogy would be “No, you can’t recieve vaginal sex because you have a penis, even though you identify as a woman” and “No, you can’t have a pap smear, because you don’t have a cervix, even though you identify as a woman.”
What I said relates to what he asked because he brought up the topic of deception in what he said.
It’s precisely because someone like myself would say ‘I am only attracted to men because I am a heterosexual woman’ that the point about defining someone based on their physical characteristics comes up.
If Jane Doe says to Joe Smith ‘I am only attracted to men’, is Joe Smith going to assume that Jane Doe means that she’s attracted to people who are physically male, or that she’s attracted to people who identify themselves as being men?
The question is, what mental image does the word ‘man’ or the word ‘woman’ conjure up in the mind of an average person when another average person says ‘I like men’ or ‘I like women’? Is that ‘defining someone based on their physical characteristics’?
What if Jane Doe and Joe Smith are at a bar and Jane makes a comment about taking a man home with her? What would be the most likely image in both of their heads if they are random, average people from Pittsburgh?
Let’s say Jane Doe and Joe Smith hit it off and decide to get physical:
Should Joe figure that Jane is referring to physical characteristics or how someone presents themselves? If Joe is really a transgendered person who actually has a vagina, should Joe just assume that Jane doesn’t consider saying ‘I am attracted to men’ to mean ‘I am attracted to male bodies’?
Is it incumbent on Jane to clarify that by men she means ‘persons who have male genitalia’ or is it incumbent on Joe to identify that Joe doesn’t have male genitalia before physical intimacy occurs because in the convention of language Jane is most likely refering to biological males?
Is Jane unfairly defining men by their body parts when using the term ‘men’ to refer to people who possess only male sexual organs? Is Joe being deceptive by not telling Jane that he has female sexual organs?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. If I’m wrong, well…:mad:
Also, I think I’m with catsix here. In that, I really would like to know before I date someone if they don’t have a penis-yes, that does matter to me.
Now, I’m going to say that if you’re having sex with random people you hardly know, yeah, honesty probably is going to be the first casuality. However, I do think people should be honest before this comes up. At least to avoid a big embarassing and hurtful situation.
However, in the end, that never EVER will justify what happened to poor Araujho.
Yes, if she refuses to respect the rights of other people to identify as men regardless of their sexual organs. She doesn’t have to sleep with them if she doesn’t want to, but if they want to be refered to as “he” and treated socially as men then I don’t see why that should be such a hardship for her.
If he’s planning to have sex with her then the right thing to do would be to tell her anything about his genitals that she might not expect. This ranges from “I have herpes” to “I have a vulva” or even “I have genital piercings”. But again, this has nothing to do with how he should be treated socially, and I believe that was the question posed to you.
My personal feeling is that “transsexual” is its own unique descriptor and is the best descriptor for said individuals. They differ from “heterosexuals” AND “homosexuals” in that their gender identity differs from their genitals.
Lamia: I was not referring to Jane saying ‘You can’t be a man because you have a vagina.’ More like when Jane uses the word ‘man’ in ‘I wanna find a man and get laid.’ she is, considering the common usage of the word, probably talking about someone with a penis.
Is that ‘wrong’ of her?
I do think that most people are using the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with the connotation of a certain set of genitals when they use them in general conversation, so what I’m asking is if those of you who are saying ‘the body doesn’t make the gender’ would consider it wrong for someone to form the mental image of a person with a penis when they hear the word ‘man’.
No, it’s not wrong to form that image. It’s wrong to think the other person is being deceptive if they don’t fit that mental image. Your assumptions were incorrect, even if they were reasonable. If I present as a woman, and offer anal sex, I look like a woman and deliver anal sex, how is this being deceptive? Everything was as advertised. A vagina wasn’t in the contract except in your head. And that makes me a liar?
Agreed, and interesting question. I am 100% in favor in accomodating transgendered individuals within reasonable limits. Were I to have a transsexual friend who preferred to be referred to as “she” than so be it…“she” it would be. But frankly I don’t think that it is incumbent on the entire population to shift the common understanding of “male” and “female” to accomodate a few exceptions. It is true that for a tiny minority of people, gender and sex do not match…demonstrating as has been mentioned that gender originates in the brain. But I think most of the population is aware that not everyone fits nicely into little categories and can adjust situationally to these exceptions. A full-scale revamping of our understanding of “male” and “female” is unwarranted, in my opinion. I guess that is that I dislike about some people’s insistance that gender and sex are unrelated constructs. For the most part they are the same for most individuals, and differ only under special circumstances (hormonal abnormalities in utero). YEs, all efforts should be made interpersonally to respect transgendered individuals, including referring to them by the pronoun of their choice (which, if they are dressing as their preferred sex (or gender), should not be a problem). But I think we should also not lose site that these are exceptions and to pull down the entire structure of what is meant by “male” and “female” is…well,…silly. So saith Avalongod.
Gee…I’d think I’d like to know something like that before intimacy starts. Lol…who knows, if the guy had his foreskin (also something to disclose before put on exhibition in this country at least)…he might need to know to be wary lest it get snagged on some labial diamond.
Well, I for one had my irony meter flash all the way to the right reading Stitch’s post – I’m fairly confident that he was being very ironic in saying how he would treat a prospective date, and that the “AIDS-infected faggots” line was just as heavily laden with irony as the rest!
Shodan, precisely what was your point in bringing up the (apparently male) man who wanted a pap smear? I think there’s an implication that the mental state is not congruent with the physiological facts in him and in the typical transgendered person, and that that’s what you subtly were trying to point out. But that point is understood and conceded by the rest of us, AFAIK. What we’ve been trying to get across is that there is a psychological issue at hand – the self-perception is at odds with the physiology, and what is the decent and respectful treatment for a person of this sort?
Just a little FYI… in 2002, there were records of 25 deaths of transgendered individuals. This is the deadliest year on record so far.
These are known statistics. Even more transgendered individuals remain hidden or “in the closest” and it is estimated that nearly half of transgendered individuals commit suicide rather than deal with pressures from society. And the muder rate for transgendered individuals is estimated to be 16 times that of an average person.
What is interesting about Gwen Araoju’s case, is the attention (and mostly positive attention at that) that it recieved. Most murders are overlooked or ignored.
Maybe this is the start of a new trend. I hope this year is not as deadly as the last.
