Abomination: Remember, the only people who get to have opinions or stances about sexual and gender identification are trans-sexual and trans-genders because they are a minority and have been oppressed. If your opinion or stance doesn't mesh with theirs: you are a bigot.
If that's your criteria, then speaking in my official capacity as a non-trangendered, non-transsexual individual, you are a bigot.
Of course I am, because my stance on sexual and gender identification differs from the average trans - not because you happen to agree with them. In fact, your opinion has nothing to do with me being a bigot or not because - as you have confessed - you are not a member of the privileged few who do get to dictate such stances.
To me sex is gender, and a trans is simply attempting to emulate the opposite for a potential variety of personal reasons that I will not begrudge them for. Not to mention all the various sub-categories of trans that people have somehow come up with... adding layers upon layers of complexity to an already deeply emotional topic.
What it boils down to is 100% tolerance being given but since it isn't 100% acceptance one is identified as an enemy - which does the entire trans demographic no favours when trying to battle the unfortunate stereotype of trans being insecure, overly emotional and unbalanced.
Thanks to you, and drisky, for the read. However, I'm not sure what to think about this; What the article's main point is that due to the failed hormone wash a person gets the "another genders brain" and thefeore their gender identity, but then there's the view that gender identity is not fixed at birth (it is caused by sociological and physiological factors; however most people just identify with a gender based on their biological parts) which contests the idea of gender identity being decided at birth.
I tried searching the studies the article cites, but I didn't come up with much, and I couldn't find other researchs etc. referencing the first article (because I'd figure psychologists would be all over such information). While I'm not contesting that gender identity received at birth would be impossible, at the moment there are just more evidence supporting the opposite hypothesis.
Abomination: Of course I am, because my stance on sexual and gender identification differs from the average trans - not because you happen to agree with them. In fact, your opinion has nothing to do with me being a bigot or not because - as you have confessed - you are not a member of the privileged few who do get to dictate such stances.
To me sex is gender, and a trans is simply attempting to emulate the opposite for a potential variety of personal reasons that I will not begrudge them for. Not to mention all the various sub-categories of trans that people have somehow come up with... adding layers upon layers of complexity to an already deeply emotional topic.
What it boils down to is 100% tolerance being given but since it isn't 100% acceptance one is identified as an enemy - which does the entire trans demographic no favours when trying to battle the unfortunate stereotype of trans being insecure, overly emotional and unbalanced.
The fact that you apparently think trans* people are "privileged" is absolutely insane. It's so out of touch with reality that I can't even imagine how you could have reached that conclusion.
If it was just some guy who decided "I'm a girl inside!" and did then made the switch... Then no. That concept just irritates me. It's like being a weeaboo, except about the opposite gender, not Japanese culture. Sure you can convince yourself that you're truly a lady... But you aren't, you're delusional. If I can't love you as a man... Getting fake tits and a faulty clunge isn't going to change my mind. If you're born with some kind of defect, some mismatched parts, that's you. and if I like you I'll live with it.
But I'm not going to lie, I do not understand transsexuality in the slightest. I'm not saying that I don't like transsexuals or don't think it's a real thing, I'm just saying I don't get it. The same way I don't get the impact of the word 'nigger' from a black person's perspective. I have a friend that's FtM and I'm trying to understand and be supportive, but it's difficult when they're going through something I can't comprehend.
You don't have to understand something to know that people suffer when they're coralled into living a lie or bullied by people who don't accept them as they are. I'm sure that unless we were born with a silver spoon in our mouth, home schooled and kept in a virtual social bubble, we've all had experiences of social cruelty, however rare. I don't know how much of trans people's suffering is due to societal mistreatment and mental polarisation driving them to seek refuge in a particular gender role vs yearning to have the body that matches their innate mindset. Or if these things are inextricably interlinked. Doesn't matter, just treat people decently and let them call themselves whatever they like. Just so long as they're reasonably consistent about it, that's all I ask.
I don't think I would be able to because I am prejudiced. It's not something I'm proud of, quite the opposite, but it isn't something I can just turn off. A lot of people carry prejudice, as this thread proves, and a lot of people would rather try to defend their prejudice with any old nonsense rather than admit to weakness.
I remember watching a programme about white South African police officers serving years after the end of apartheid. This one guy spoke about racism as being like being an alcoholic; every morning you had to look in the mirror and say to yourself "I am an alcoholic, so I will not act like an alcoholic". To me, my prejudice feels much the same; I am aware of it and must take consious steps to prevent it from affecting my judgement.
i have a partner-so no. but i think-if i am in love, then yes, why not? i loved ppl which didn't fit my idea of attractive-but love is love and if this person is a good, compassionate wonderful intelligent one-then , yeah sure. anatomy is not important to me and health or some strange idea of normality is not important for me. i could imagine dating a disabled person in a wheelchair or whatever. and the methods of operation for male-> female are excellent- i saw a neo-vagina and i couldn't tell the difference to a "real" one.(and well, i know how vagoos look like^^) if a m->f gets her body very early-short after or wile puberty(so the hormones cant do their destructive (yes, for TG puberty is destructive-the fact that TG are more likely to commit suicide(and have a higher risk of becoming mentally ill-depressive or addicted(because of the depression) has a reason-being trapped in a body that morphs to something that isn't you seems horrible to me. And a society which fears and despises TG is ad too- TG have a higher risk of becoming a victim of abuse and violence too.) you cant really tell a difference.
a good, because early made mtF Tg is kim here: doesn't only look like a girl-she is one. i am not into blondes but that is a really pretty girl :] startet with hormone-therapy very early (the parents told that at a very early agge in childhood kim hated her body so much, she wanted to cut her penis off with a scissor. she started wearing girls-clothing at the age of 2 (http://www.colorsmagazine.com/stories/magazine/76/story/body-changes) so- i dont think taht this is a mental illness- maybe there was some hormonal stuff that made her this way. but she is happy and i think thats the important thing. i think everybody deserves to e happy
Doesn't matter what tool s/he has, it's fine with me as long as we're in sync.
As for people who find it distasteful or even disgusting, that's fine, we are who we are and nothing could or should change that. No reason to defend your dislikes. We can't live in a society where there isn't room for people who can't cope with certain aspects. As long as you own up to your opinion and don't go on a rally against those you can't stand, there's not really a problem.
Bertylicious: I don't think I would be able to because I am prejudiced. It's not something I'm proud of, quite the opposite, but it isn't something I can just turn off. A lot of people carry prejudice, as this thread proves, and a lot of people would rather try to defend their prejudice with any old nonsense rather than admit to weakness.
I remember watching a programme about white South African police officers serving years after the end of apartheid. This one guy spoke about racism as being like being an alcoholic; every morning you had to look in the mirror and say to yourself "I am an alcoholic, so I will not act like an alcoholic". To me, my prejudice feels much the same; I am aware of it and must take consious steps to prevent it from affecting my judgement.
That's interesting. Just don't compromise yourself in an effort to like anyone you don't have to. If you come to learn to like a person, that's fine, but there's no reason to create a fake image. Afterall, honesty is much better, even if you get some raised eyebrows along the way.
Abomination: Of course I am, because my stance on sexual and gender identification differs from the average trans - not because you happen to agree with them. In fact, your opinion has nothing to do with me being a bigot or not because - as you have confessed - you are not a member of the privileged few who do get to dictate such stances.
The fact that you apparently think trans* people are "privileged" is absolutely insane. It's so out of touch with reality that I can't even imagine how you could have reached that conclusion.
Because I'm talking about who gets to dictate what sexual and gender identification is, not practical benefits. In the field of dictating sexual and gender identification it seems that trans have a monopoly on righteous indignation. It is their definition or be prepared to be called a bigot - and that is absurd.
"I was born a man but you better call me a woman and IN YOUR VERY MIND CONSIDER me a woman." The second capitalised part is the concept I can not stand, that having an opinion one keeps to themselves unless asked about it makes them a terrible person. Or as the issue DugMachine had earlier, he doesn't have to date a M->F trans because maybe he considers them unattractive but it's wrong to not date them because they're a trans, he still considers them to be male, and he is heterosexual. Which highlights the issue he mentioned in the first place - apparently trans expect everyone to consider them sexually equal on an individual level to every other prospective mate.
Souplex: Women are crazy, so if there were someone who fit my other dating criteria with a man's mind, and a woman's parts, I think I'd be all over that.
So you know, more the point of transgendered is "mind and parts don't match".[1] Transexual means that "mind and body now match, but both are different from birth sex".[2] To say that a person "has a man's mind and a woman's parts" would more accurately refer to a transgendered male.
Side note about terminology:
1) transgendered VS transsexual - difference between mind and parts VS surgery to make the mind and parts match
2) trans[X] guy/male VS trans[X] girl/female - in all cases, you are supposed to use the individuals preferred gender. A male mind in a girls body is a transgendered guy, a person born a guy who had surgery to become a girl is a transexual girl.
3) trans[X] vs non-trans[X] - this is more a side note about a side note, but it is a bit mean/insensitive to call people who aren't trans "normal".[3] The terminology for a male born with a mans parts is "cis male"/"cis guy" and for a girl with girl parts is "cis girl" or "cis female".
3.5) I dunno what "cis" refers to specifically.
I think it's an oblique reference to cis vs trans double bonds in a fatty acid molecule (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Cis_Fat_vs_Trans_Fat) - you know, trans fats are only typically occur unnaturally through technology (through a hydrogenation process using polyunsaturated plant fatty acid/oil. They also actually happen to be bad for you, but I don't think that's part of the definition here) Cis fatty acid bonds are naturally occurring.
Which makes sense - cis is for the male mind in male body or female mind in female body as the 'norm' while trans for the male mind in female to male altered body etc as the 'technologically converted'.
Not to say that gender mismatch isn't naturally occurring.
Oh well.. Trans means across and Cis means on the same side as, (which explains why the fats have their relative designations) so trans males have to transition their body to male to match their outlook/mind/brain-patterns/hormones while cis males have their body on the same side as their brain etc..
Ok, this is really rubbing me the wrong way, being a chemistry nerd and all: 1. There are naturally occuring trans fatty acids, found in milk and dairy products. Not a lot but there are some.
2. I highly doubt that a community would wish to name itself after fatty acids of all things, especially since the terms "cis-" and "trans-" are used in chemistry to identify isomers of molecules and are not solely used for fatty acids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism
3. Really, why the f*ck would any group wish to name itself after fatty acids of all things.
[1] That is, a man in the body of a girl or a woman in the body of a boy
[2] A person born with a penis had a girls brain and now has a girls body, for example
[3] For clarification, that is because it implies that a trans person is not normal
as a transgirl myself, i'm more or less required to want to date my own kind...which is good. 'Cause there are some hot tgirls and tboys out there :3 being bi has benefits
But therein lies the problem. I'm attracted to women, I must accept trans MtF as women so I should have no problem dating them. But I do and that's what has me so upset. Either way i'm screwed.
But then if there is no attraction there is no attraction.
I mean :
Could I date a guy : Yes if we are both attracted to each other. Could I date a girl : see above Could i date a Transexual : well you get the idea
I mean nobody is attracted to 100% of his/her preferred gender.
Yeah, why not? I think I could on paper, obviously never had the situation presented to me, and I do often joke that I'd end up with one anyway, given most of the qualities that are in women that I fancy are generally "manly" traits. The only problem is, is I'd like to have a kid one day, and obviously it would depend on how the girl feels about having a carrier for the child.
Mind you, I think it's more likely that a trans-girl would be more feminine in personality, as if you were blokey, it seems odd that you would have the drive to want to change gender to a female.
No, a lot of people might answer yes to save face and seem like a good person, some may legitimately not mind or be attracted to that, but there's no way I could date a MtoF transvestite (Straight male) Does that make me a bad person? No Does that make me ignorant or perhaps prejudice? No Not sure if it's possible for such a transvestite to biologically have children in their new sexual state, but I don't think so, and that's obviously one of the major factors in a serious relationship (Of course in the state of finding my partner late in the relationship to be unable to due to natural means, the story would be different, but would be different because it's something they cannot help)
As a scientist, I just want to chip in on the absolutely disgusting amount of biological determinism on this thread and remind everyone that "this affects that" or "this has been observed" are just observations that A) are likely to be incomplete or outright wrong because of faulty methods or limited understanding on the subject, B) imply no causation or correlation, strictly speaking, as it is possible those findings do not support the conclusions derived from them, and C) even if the logic, conclusions and findings are indeed airtight, biology is not fate. Being born with this or that gene, having this or that hormone or brain structure, being this or that way has nothing to do with what you are.
You can be whatever you want to be, and people using biology to say "you can't be that" are douchebags who should stay the hell away from science because they are clearly not capable of using science's findings responsibly. Science is not a tool to oppress. Stop using science to justify bigotry, you're giving biology, genetics, endocrinology and neurology (as well as who knows how many other fields) a bad name.
Random Fella: No, a lot of people might answer yes to save face and seem like a good person, some may legitimately not mind or be attracted to that, but there's no way I could date a MtoF transvestite (Straight male) Does that make me a bad person? No Does that make me ignorant or perhaps prejudice? No Not sure if it's possible for such a transvestite to biologically have children in their new sexual state, but I don't think so, and that's obviously one of the major factors in a serious relationship (Of course in the state of finding my partner late in the relationship to be unable to due to natural means, the story would be different, but would be different because it's something they cannot help)
Why would you assume that because you're not attracted to them sexually that might make you bad, ignorant, or prejudice?
Sexuality is one of those things that cannot be changed (except possibly through severe trauma, or possibly through experimentation), and it's an inward thing. Acceptance of others, especially when it pertains to someone getting a job or not, is an outward thing.
I get that you're probably just clarifying, but nonetheless no one's really going to care if you like someone or something or not, and if they do, they're the prejudice one.
OniaPL: While I'm not contesting that gender identity received at birth would be impossible, at the moment there are just more evidence supporting the opposite hypothesis.
Speak for your own experiences, because I've found the opposite to be true. Besides, if that was the case, people like me would be in padded cells rather than receiving the current standards of treatment. That theory has been in place and building supporting evidence since at least 1995 (See: Zhou et al. (1995)), if not earlier. Now this resource is a tad bit dated, but it does go into that as well as our standards of care, if you are interested: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html Someone dropped that in one of the previous threads about the topic. It's written from the perspective of a transsexual woman, so expect some bias.
Random Fella: No, a lot of people might answer yes to save face and seem like a good person, some may legitimately not mind or be attracted to that, but there's no way I could date a MtoF transvestite (Straight male) Does that make me a bad person? No Does that make me ignorant or perhaps prejudice? No Not sure if it's possible for such a transvestite to biologically have children in their new sexual state, but I don't think so, and that's obviously one of the major factors in a serious relationship (Of course in the state of finding my partner late in the relationship to be unable to due to natural means, the story would be different, but would be different because it's something they cannot help)
Why would you assume that because you're not attracted to them sexually that might make you bad, ignorant, or prejudice?
Sexuality is one of those things that cannot be changed (except possibly through severe trauma, or possibly through experimentation), and it's an inward thing. Acceptance of others, especially when it pertains to someone getting a job or not, is an outward thing.
I get that you're probably just clarifying, but nonetheless no one's really going to care if you like someone or something or not, and if they do, they're the prejudice one.
I take from what you've said, and your post count that you're new here You'll come to understand why, with how people act on the internet, especially on this site I find
OniaPL: While I'm not contesting that gender identity received at birth would be impossible, at the moment there are just more evidence supporting the opposite hypothesis.
Speak for your own experiences, because I've found the opposite to be true. Besides, if that was the case, people like me would be in padded cells rather than receiving the current standards of treatment. That theory has been in place and building supporting evidence since at least 1995 (See: Zhou et al. (1995)), if not earlier. Now this resource is a tad bit dated, but it does go into that as well as our standards of care, if you are interested: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html Someone dropped that in one of the previous threads about the topic. It's written from the perspective of a transsexual woman, so expect some bias.
Padded cells? It's not like I am claiming that transsexuality is some kind of illness. I don't think that transsexuality or any other form of sexuality is a choice; I'm claiming that it is not determined at birth. The socio/physiological factors are ones an individual can't really do anything about, and they seem to create the gender identity.
I fear that the article might be somewhat wasted on me though; english is not my native language and therefore I had some difficulty understanding some of the terminology.
What probably my main problem with this is that everything saying that the size of BTSc would serve as the neurobiological basis for transgenderism references this same study that was performed back in 1995 with a relatively small sample size, and another one from 2000 that was from the same group. I personally am just paranoid/doubting of the theory since it's foundation and basis largely rests on only these two studies. While it may be possible that these studies could be correct, I wouldn't say that this hypothesis has been confirmed. While it may just be my own confirmation bias, I wouldn't agree with the claim being confirmed. What I do agree with is that it deserves more looking into, however so that the hypothesis could possibly be proven true.
I can't help but wonder if some of the more visceral responses in this thread aren't motivated by a thorough understanding of biology and are more the case of people being afraid of catching the gay.
Biological sex is not a neat and tidy issue. If it was, it wouldn't be such a hassle for the IOC to identify men competing in women's events.
I don't mean to offend transexuals, because I really don't have anything against them. If you're brave enough to accept that you were born as a different gender, then you have all the respects from me.
Dating one though? No. Flat out. The thought slightly disgusts me.
krazykidd: Nope . Never . Ever . And if i date a person who i thought was born a woman to find out they weren't i'd probably go to jail for murder .
You know what , i think i'm going to ask ever girl i meet if they were born a girl. I'm scared now .
well that escalated quickly. "Gasp, you didn't tell me you were born a certain way. Gonna have to kill you now."
Doesn't that seem like...I dunno...a bit ridiculous? Maybe somewhat psychotic? Being trans is rather a personal thing, as a tgirl myself I told my lovers before I slept with them my gender status, but I sure as hell didn't tell them when I started dating: it's not something i'd share on a first or second date. Not until i'm ready to move to the next step.
Zachary Amaranth: Medically speaking, a MTF transsexual is not male.
Chromosomes, sorry.
Zachary Amaranth: how fortunate that one does not need a fetish to follow through.
Not really true. Pheromones make it such that you can generally tell at a base level what chromosomes someone has, and this will color their sexual attractiveness to you on a subconscious level accordingly. You may not agree with the use of the term "fetish" to describe someone who does not detect or interpret pheromones the way most people do, but it's sounds appropriate to me. Unless there are transgender surgeries that I'm not aware of that include pheromone-producing organs, it is absolutely the case that to find a transgendered person attractive for a heterosexual is an abnormality, or at least an oddity, or an unlikely occurrence.
Now, you might be able to will yourself to ignore your subconsciousness I guess, and assuming that the transgendered person is otherwise convincing in most or all other ways, you might end up subconsciously ignoring the pheromone cues anyways. But once you find out that they are in fact transgendered you'll probably find that your sex drive diminishes and that they feel more like a close friend or family member than a partner if there was anything between you before.
Oh Boy. Let me sing you the song of my people.
Well before I started my transitioning, I was being called a girl ALL the time. I loved it, and I would respond as such. I also have an identical twin brother (genetically identical just to clarify) who gets called 'her', 'miss', 'she' and so on on a regular basis. It drives him bonkers.
Now, after my hormone treatments, I look even more feminine and have a more believable girls voice, and I"ve never been outed if I did not wish to be.
Random Fella: No, a lot of people might answer yes to save face and seem like a good person, some may legitimately not mind or be attracted to that, but there's no way I could date a MtoF transvestite (Straight male) Does that make me a bad person? No Does that make me ignorant or perhaps prejudice? No Not sure if it's possible for such a transvestite to biologically have children in their new sexual state, but I don't think so, and that's obviously one of the major factors in a serious relationship (Of course in the state of finding my partner late in the relationship to be unable to due to natural means, the story would be different, but would be different because it's something they cannot help)
Why would you assume that because you're not attracted to them sexually that might make you bad, ignorant, or prejudice?
Sexuality is one of those things that cannot be changed (except possibly through severe trauma, or possibly through experimentation), and it's an inward thing. Acceptance of others, especially when it pertains to someone getting a job or not, is an outward thing.
I get that you're probably just clarifying, but nonetheless no one's really going to care if you like someone or something or not, and if they do, they're the prejudice one.
I take from what you've said, and your post count that you're new here You'll come to understand why, with how people act on the internet, especially on this site I find
I am new to this site (I've been on it years ago when Apocalypse Lane was made, just I never made an account), but I've been on the internet for a while. I know people are stupid and throw accusations, but I'm just saying there's no reason for you to have to try to justify yourself on this. If someone is gonna throw accusations, they'll just nitpick your argument, they won't actually say "oh, okay, he's clarified that his position is based off of sexual attraction, not based out of bigotry".
Of course I am, because my stance on sexual and gender identification differs from the average trans - not because you happen to agree with them. In fact, your opinion has nothing to do with me being a bigot or not because - as you have confessed - you are not a member of the privileged few who do get to dictate such stances.
To me sex is gender, and a trans is simply attempting to emulate the opposite for a potential variety of personal reasons that I will not begrudge them for. Not to mention all the various sub-categories of trans that people have somehow come up with... adding layers upon layers of complexity to an already deeply emotional topic.
What it boils down to is 100% tolerance being given but since it isn't 100% acceptance one is identified as an enemy - which does the entire trans demographic no favours when trying to battle the unfortunate stereotype of trans being insecure, overly emotional and unbalanced.