"She", not "he", guys
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
My gender is not open for "philosophical" discussion, and i'm reporting this post.
report: "harassment, rude, just not fucking acceptable. you wanna start a thread about how you hate tranny fucks thats fine; you don't get to start a thread attacking me PERSONALLY for it."
Define 'cunt.'
If gender is so fluid, then what I may view as man or woman, my perception, is mine. Right? I may think henry a fine woman. He may think otherwise.
For someone who preaches understanding and acceptance of all things, ibs, you were awfully quick to call out jbk in that other thread.
And that's why you're mad. You got called out on your intolerance and you look hypocritical.
nope. i don't accept intolerance. comparing bullshit to the holocaust is intolerance of the highest degree. you don't have to agree, but that's not be being quick to not-accept. some things are just fucking wrong.
some things are just fucking wrong.
Are you saying that objective 'right' and 'wrong' exist? Or are you just expressing an opinion?
Not up for a fight tonight ... just throwing the philosophical question out there.
snip--
And that's why you're mad. You got called out on your intolerance and you look hypocritical.
... I don't see it that way. hq named Ibram specifcally. hq started the thread with Ibram specifically in mind. Then, Ibram complained about hq's remarks about Ibram specifically. That's not being a cunt. That's not being a hypocrite. That's objecting to being called something or another. hq can say and think what he likes, and Ibram can respond as he likes.
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
What if I called you "stupid"? I could say the same thing as the above quote:
"*that infinite monkey self-defines as 'smart' is fine by me; that she believes anyone else is obligated to her as smart (for no other reason than because she wants it that way) is absurd."
You may well object, and strenuously, to being referred to like that, but that wouldn't make it hypocrisy, even if you'd had made a dumb mistakes in the past. It's just objecting to someone else's statements about you.
For the record, I don't remember anything from Ibram indicating he
preaches understanding and acceptance of all things
. Also for the record, I don't think you're stupid. Quite the opposite, I think you're whip-smart. But I still don't agree with your analysis of Ibram's reaction.
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
According to the usual western gender constructions yes. But it isn't really that simple. Nor has it ever been. Lots of cultures recognise broader understandings of gender (as well as narrower in other cultures) than ours currently does. Some cultures accept a 'third gender'. Some grudgingly, some with hallowed respect. Some cultures with highly regulated gender roles will nontheless allow a widow or single woman to adopt a masculine identity in order to lead their household. Referred to as 'he' and 'him' from that point on.
The more we learn about gender the more it seems that neither biological gender, nor psycho-sexual gender( or indeed cultural understandings of gender) are anywhere near as black and white as we once understood them to be.
All that aside: why not accept someone else's self-definition? They're the only ones who know what life is like on the inside of their own heads.
cause dana, basic human decency and courtesy is way too hard for fucked up people like him. duh.
For the record, bigv, I was referring to ibs calling henry a cunt, in that other thread.
But I get it. We must all be tolerant but ibs doesn't have to be tolerant. Because he's different and special? We're all different and special.
Id like a manual, because I'm unsure of the rules here: who gets to go off on whom, and about what? Is there a decider?
Basic human decency and courtesy = 'you sick twisted fuck'
To someone who has admitted to mental illness. Nice.
So, because he has admitted to mental illness he gets a free pass on whatever nasty, bigoted or misogynistic bullshit he decides to post?
And whilst we're all lecturing each other on who has to tolerate whom, how bout sparing a thought for the fact that Ibs has pretty good reason to expect bigotted bullshit from Klyde.
That's the problem with human interaction. We form views of each other and respond as much to that as to what the other person actually says. So, Klyde has done a bang up job of making sure that in the event of any doubt it's a pretty safe bet that his words probably are bigotted and anti-gay.
And yeah, maybe his mental state has something to do with that, or maybe he's just a racist, homophobic, anti-woman prick, who also happens to be mentally ill.
Who the fuck knows. I certainly don't.
Ah. I just realised what you meant. Yeah. Unfortunate choice of words in the circumstances.
you wanna start a thread about how you hate tranny fucks thats fine; you don't get to start a thread attacking me PERSONALLY for it.
I personally am much more offended by the former. Anyone can hate anyone. Many do.
Ibs, your trannyism seems to have you on a red cunt hair trigger for many years. That is the most curious aspect of it so far. Probably something going on there. I would talk to someone about it.
The endless victimization is very unattractive, and generally poor behavior, no matter what you have been told. There is no karma police in real life. Because names, it turns out, will never hurt you -- unless you permit them.
... Because names, it turns out, will never hurt you -- unless you permit them.
Where can I get one of those permits to call people names that hurt?
I'd chime in, but things seem to be flowing pretty good here.
I's chime in, but things seem to be flowing pretty good here.
Well, I think Henry's a p'tahk for just starting this thread.
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
Speaking as someone who has no earthly clue what this little lover's spat is about and doesn't really care, I shall respond to the questions posed.
My opinion is: I can't even
begin to understand why anybody would give a fuck.
I certainly don't. :eyebrow:
[SIZE="1"]Unless, of course, this Ibram person is actually Poor Pitiful Whacked-Out Pam of yore, who killed her landlord with a pointy stick or something, in which case, I care even less.[/SIZE]
"My gender is not open for "philosophical" discussion, and i'm reporting this post."
I say it is, guy, and, report away!
"...you don't get to start a thread attacking me PERSONALLY for it."
Demonstrably: I have begun a thread, so, you're wrong.
Eye of the beholder, guy.
"What if I called you "stupid"?"
You wouldn't be the first.
Have at it!
My skin is thick and I'm not sensitive.
"But it isn't really that simple."
Yes it is.
Culture doesn't alter reality. The transgender man (pre-op or after) is still 'male'.
Till nanotech advances to the point where tiny lil robots can zip into each cell and jigger 'round with DNA, no amount of cultural defining, surgery, or hormone shots alters the fact that male is male and female is female.
It is what it is...he is what he is.
*shrug*
#
"why not accept someone else's self-definition?"
Speaking only for me: 'cause reality trumps my (or his) definitions.
If he wants to self-identify as 'girl' -- again -- that's fine...no profit for or cost to me if he self-defines as 'girl'.
But the cost to me is high if 'I' pretend he's a 'she', 'cause he's not.
As you like...and: who are you again that I should care?
Culture doesn't alter reality.
Language is culture, not reality. You don't interact with Ibram on a genetic level; you interact with her on an abstract personality level. A level on which the only reason not to use her preferred pronoun, and especially the only reason to do so in such an outspoken way, is to annoy her.
This thread is nothing but "I'm gonna be a jerk to Ibram. Anyone wanna join in?"
Ibs, if you are going to be a tranny, you HAVE to develop a thick hide. It's a requirement. I agree with UT, you have been a little too sensitive to the jerks of the world. They are a fact of life and you will need to keep your head up high and ignore the little stuff.
The Cellar has a neat feature called the 'ignore' and it does just what it says. I have ignored people in the past and will do so in the future.
You are above the name-calling, always tell yourself that.
Love
Pam
You [strike]are[/strike] need to rise above the name-calling, always tell yourself that.
I believe in fighting intolerance and this kind of bullshit, not ignoring it and moving on. if i seem like i'm on a hair trigger it's only because I believe it's the duty of all moral people to fight back against this kind of hate with all they've got, every single time they see it.
I agree with IBram this is sexual harassment.
Henry, you have no understanding whatsoever of the concept of gender, which has literally absolutely nothing to do with physical sex, except when cultural forces make it so.
Happy monkey nailed it. all you cunts who refuse to take the time and add one little letter to your pronouns are ONLY doing it to be unpleasant little bitches and get a rise out of me. it tends to work. congrats.
I agree with IBram this is sexual harassment.
I think I saw that picture on TMZ...
all you cunts who refuse to take the time and add one little letter to your pronouns are ONLY doing it to be unpleasant little bitches and get a rise out of me. it tends to work. congrats.
Apparently you have learned it is far easier to preach than practice eh?
One can only assume your not as "tolerant" as you claim.
I am disappoint.
Henry, you have no understanding whatsoever of the concept of gender, which has literally absolutely nothing to do with physical sex, except when cultural forces make it so.
Happy monkey nailed it. all you cunts who refuse to take the time and add one little letter to your pronouns are ONLY doing it to be unpleasant [COLOR="Red"]to[/COLOR] little bitches and get a rise out of me. it tends to work. congrats.
settle down, beavis.
[COLOR="White"]_______[/COLOR]/
The sheer fact that a homo thread gets more attention than one speaking of sound minds goes to show that the level of sanity and morality on this entire bullitian board is least to say "poor."
The sheer fact that a homo thread gets more attention than one speaking of sound minds goes to show that the level of sanity and morality on this entire bullitian board is least to say "poor."
Pipe down, prick.
I agree with IBram ...
That's very commendable JBKlyde, supporting Ibram just like a big brother would. We know you'll watch over Ibram and teach Ibram well.
I believe in fighting intolerance and this kind of bullshit, not ignoring it and moving on. if i seem like i'm on a hair trigger it's only because I believe it's the duty of all moral people to fight back against this kind of hate with all they've got, every single time they see it.
Rrright, where it's understood by all that when you say "this kind", you are referring to the kind that you personally experience. Obviously, we aren't in this thread talking about any other kind.
And how we "fight" is:
A) We calmly discuss an issue that intelligent people may disagree on, and discover through common respect what we can learn from each other in a two-way process.
B) We call everybody we disagree with a fucking ignorant cunt.
(B-prime) Assume the moral high ground. That way B is permitted and is not poor behavior.
AND BY THE WAY when you talk about gender you are not speaking for all TG people. And I know this because: well, I've known more of them than you have.
AND BY THE WAY when you talk about gender you are not speaking for all TG people. And I know this because: well, I've known more of them than you have.
That made me smile :p
nope. i don't accept intolerance.
I so get that. I can't stand intolerance either.
[YOUTUBE]h2ke-b8_hHU[/YOUTUBE]
From now on, I'd like to be known as Big Dick Blaque.
Because it's a 100% accurate description.
[COLOR="Red"]Video clip NSFW[/COLOR]
[YOUTUBE]Toj8nkaPdtA[/YOUTUBE]
You [strike]are[/strike] need to rise above the name-calling, always tell yourself that.
Gotta agree with that. OTOH, I believe my Klingon insult to quirky henry was totally called for. I'm wondering what
it's well-thought-out, logical explanation is for it's prejudice against Ibram.
"why not accept someone else's self-definition?"
Speaking only for me: 'cause reality trumps my (or his) definitions.
If he wants to self-identify as 'girl' -- again -- that's fine...no profit for or cost to me if he self-defines as 'girl'.
But the cost to me is high if 'I' pretend he's a 'she', 'cause he's not.
Why does physical appearance trump psychological belief? We have enough evidence now to know that there is a different brain chemistry between men and women, and also between any kind of person in between.
Surely what's on the inside is equally important as what's on the outside.
As to the rest of this shit fight, I've started a number of threads in the past after being prompted to thought by something another poster believes or thinks about. Personally, I've never considered it to be attacking the other person, but an exploration of an idea that I don't feel very informed about usually.
But the cost to me is high if 'I' pretend he's a 'she', 'cause he's not.
I musta missed this one B4, but since it 's been brought to my attention (thanks Ali. ;)), tell me Mr. Hanky, what exactly
is the cost to you? Cuz I see no logical way this can affect your state of being.
As you like...and: who are you again that I should care?
Never said you should.
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
Just a note on this statement.
It's rather contradictory. If you think it's fine that Ibram defines as a girl, then I don't see where there's any absurdity in recognising her wishes, ie what difference does it make to you, and if there's none, then why not simply do as a person asks instead of making it an issue?
I musta missed this one B4, but since it 's been brought to my attention (thanks Ali. ;)), tell me Mr. Hanky, what exactly is the cost to you? Cuz I see no logical way this can affect your state of being.
Never said you should.
Yabbut you're a sick twisted fuck, right? Who are you again? Oh yeah, our newest pillar.
Too soon?
So, Infi. I take it you agree with Henry's assertions regarding Ib's self definition then?
I agree with henry's assertion about ibs calling jbk a sick twisted fuck. How can you take anything else from my post?
And so, in the spirit of the day, I took the moment to communicate my increasing intolerance for drax and his new moral high ground, albeit with what must be supposed to be amusing name play like Mr Hanky.
I didn't take it from your post so much as the fact you seemed to be jumping on John for attempting to supprt Ibs.
Clearly I misread your intent :p
You do seem to be almost pleased to see Ibs 'get some' though. Again maybe I am misreading the situation. But I think in another context you'd probably be appalled by what henry is saying in much of this thread.
I don't care for john yet. Perhaps the new and improved one will grow on me.
As to ibs, I really don't know. This is new subject matter for me. This is why I stated earlier that understanding would better come from explanation and discussion rather than reaction and name-calling. I get a bit turned away when someone scolds me like I'm a child for not making the conscious decision to start calling someone I've known as a 'he' for years a 'she.' I might be confused and trying to understand, but admonishing me for not getting immediately with the program isn't going to turn my head.
Oh I get that. I do. And I agree with a lot of posters that Ibs needs to grow a thicker skin and be less preachy. But...
Giving Klyde a free pass when he is throwing the word 'homo' into every other post and generally conducting an anti-homosexual crusade in the cellar doesn't seem a good response to me. I'm not suggesting we all round on Klyde. But if he keeps pricking at Ibs and Ibs pricks back, maybe we dont all leap on Ibs in response.
Nor do I think it's fair to all wade in if another poster decides he's going to tear into Ib's sense of self in such a crass and demeaning manner as this thread.
That's as much as I am going to say about this now. I find it all really grim.
Ibs doesn't need to grow a thicker skin, he seems to be getting all the attention he wants with his current M.O.
all you cunts who refuse to take the time and add one little letter to your pronouns are ONLY doing it to be unpleasant little bitches and get a rise out of me. it tends to work. congrats.
I'm going to tell you right now, I have accidentally given you the wrong pronoun in the recent past and will almost certainly do so in the future, though I am trying not to.
Ask yourself this: why do you feel the need to live as "Erica" in the real world now? Why not keep using your old boy name?
It's because names matter. They are part of our identity, the most fundamental indicator of our identity, more important than anatomy or behavior. You have chosen to change your identity in real life, and correspondingly change your name in real life. You have chosen to change your identity online... yet keep your old name online... then get pissed when people can't remember? It's not like your username is Starcatcher or some androgynous bullshit. Ibram is a real name, and a culturally male one. How come you don't just expect your real life friends to remember that J***** is now a girl's name?
Register under Ibica. Or whatever you want. You need a new signifier for your new identity. Do it today. Please.
As far as I know Ibram isn't a real name. And there's a big difference between people accidentally doing it and people making the choice not to. They and I know when that is. When i said "all you cunts who refuse" i don't mean the ones who aren't making the CHOICE to refuse.
As to ibs, I really don't know. This is new subject matter for me. This is why I stated earlier that understanding would better come from explanation and discussion rather than reaction and name-calling. I get a bit turned away when someone scolds me like I'm a child for not making the conscious decision to start calling someone I've known as a 'he' for years a 'she.' I might be confused and trying to understand, but admonishing me for not getting immediately with the program isn't going to turn my head.
Get OUT of my head!
Ibs doesn't need to grow a thicker skin, he seems to be getting all the attention he wants with his current M.O.
Register under Ibica. Or whatever you want. You need a new signifier for your new identity. Do it today. Please.
Good ... VERY good.
You do seem to be almost pleased to see Ibs 'get some' though. Again maybe I am misreading the situation. But I think in another context you'd probably be appalled by what henry is saying in much of this thread.
I expect it's much the same as the pleasure I perceive some to feel when they get to point out others' moral ineptitude.
<snip>
Nor do I think it's fair to all wade in if another poster decides he's going to
tear into Ib's sense of self in such a crass and demeaning manner as this thread.
That's as much as I am going to say about this now.I find it all really grim.
I agree completely.
This thread should have been closed at Posts #2 and 3
It wasn't, so Henry Quick wins my award as "Troll of 2012".
Nor do I think it's fair to all wade in if another poster decides he's going to tear into Ib's sense of self in such a crass and demeaning manner as this thread.
Original post for comparison.
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes? No? Opinions?
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
Perhaps you read into that OP something that I didn't. I wouldn't define it as crass nor demeaning. But hey, thats just my opinion.
As far as I know Ibram isn't a real name.
Sure it is. A less common shortening of Ibrahim, and more often a last name, but definitely a male name of Hebrew/Arabic origin. Type it into Google and it suggests at least three famous people with the first name: prolific black rights professor Ibram Rogers, painter Ibram Lassaw, and a well-known fictional character, Ibram Gaunt from Warhammer. It's never been in the top 1000 names in America, but then again, neither has Hyacinth.
I worked with a pharmacist called Ibrahim in Leicester.
He was called Ibram by people who knew him well.
In fact it was tricky as he was Ibrahim Mohammed*, so to the Muslim community his first name and last name were interchangeable (like Elton John). If someone called and asked to speak to Ibram, at least I knew it was a call he wanted to have put through. When they called to speak to Mohammed I guessed they'd only seen his name on a letterhead.
* I do not feel bad giving his full name as it is similar to John Smith.
I'm too sexy for my username
Too sexy for my username
But that's just me not you
Boohoo.
I agree completely.
This thread should have been closed at Posts #2 and 3
It wasn't, so Henry Quick wins my award as "Troll of 2012".
Vote number 2 in favor of Henry Quirk as "Troll of 2012". Still a long way to go on the year, he may out do himself, or another semi dweller may up the ante before Xmas. I reserve the right to vote again later in the year.
Yeah, him asking that question (as classic pointed out that's what it was) qualifies him as more troll than merc has been this year. :lol2:
Oh I love the logic around here. Good groupthink.
Wtf. Group think?
Damnit. I wasn't going to post in here again, but that got me. Why are the people taking issue with this thread engaged in 'group think' and what, those who argue the opposite are all independent thinkers?
It's always the same. Every time there's an argument or disagreement, you accuse anybody on the other side of that argument from you of engaging in 'group think' or of being 'sheep' or generally being unable or unwilling to think for themselves.
Three or four people on each side of the argument, but one side are just following the group, but the other side all independently arrive in the same place.
ffs.
So you don't agree with my assertion that merc has done much more damage to people this year than henry has? That's just fucking ludicrous and blind.
Who needs it. I suck in every way. Hqve fun in the land of fucking perfect, and I am glad that I could coach you from your moratorium on this thread.
Ffs indeed.
I didn't say i disagree with that. I just dislike the 'group think' accusation thatgets thrown out every. single. time.
You seriously are accusing Regular Joe of acting on 'group think' ?
Every time.
I'm not trying to be a bitch with you Inf. It just really galls me that's all. that particular thing. because here we are with various ones of us lecturing each other about courtesy and tolerance, but sweeping away everything the other side has to say as 'group think' is deeply insulting and discourteous imo.
Even to talk about 'sides' is probably disengenuous of me really. \because individual people come to the threads and form their opinions based on their views and what they read and then in their post they position themselves somewhere within the argument.
It's such a totally disregarding thing to say. reminds me of the times I used toget into arguments with J and he'd say 'oh, you've been talking to your Mother again'. Like I coudnt just have come to that opinion myself right?
It's the same thing. But it's every time the argument divides into two rough camps. You always accuse those on the opposing side of the argument of group think.
Welcome to Judge Sexobon's courtroom.
Today it's the case of:
Monkey see, monkey do, do ,do what you done, done, done before, baby.
Ah man. I ahould have taken my own advice and stayed out of here.
't'aint worth falling out over, inf:p
I was just going to say I should stay out of this thread too.
I'm sorry regular joe.
I am too close to this in a couple ways.
But I would like to say to sexo that yyouve done that to me before, and maybe you should consider that some of us have vulnerabilities no one hears about. You make me feel like shit when you make snotty comments. Maybe you don't mean it that way.
But my life has been falling apart, I've been falling apart, and for everyone's information henry has been a rock, a friend who really cares. About me, as me, in all my fucked up glory.
There's an awful olot we don't know about each other.
[Khan]Superior women. I will take them.[/Khan]
Gee, I thought I'd sorted this whole mess out last night!
I don't care for John yet. Perhaps the new and improved one will grow on me.
Frankly, I don't care if
anyone here likes me. Ima be me.
Vote number 2 in favor of Henry Quirk as "Troll of 2012". Still a long way to go on the year, he may out do himself, or another semi dweller may up the ante before Xmas. I reserve the right to vote again later in the year.
That is humor, you may recognize that.
I vote Henry Quirk simply as "Coward" cuz it refused to answer my very logically valid questions.
John, you must hate shit like Bell's Theorem.
If Ibram pretends to be a woman, there is no cost to me.
If I -- knowing Ibram is male -- pretend he's a 'she' then I lie (to myself) and in the lie, I diminish myself, to myself.
That Ibram lies to himself is irrelevant to me: that I lie to myself to make Ibram feel good is a high price I won't pay.
If I demand to be called 'Lord God Quirk', will you comply?
I'm no more a 'lord' or a 'god' than Ibram is a woman, but his demand is complied with, so, why not mine?
Because to do so makes you a liar and a bit of an idiot.
So, if you lie and engage in idiocy calling me 'Lord God Quirk', then, maybe, you lie and engage in idiocy calling a 'he' a 'she'.
But: do as you like...I certainly will.
And: If Ibram is secure in his self-definition, then it shouldn't matter if some jackass refuses to call him 'her'.
That he is so offended by my lack of compliance says a lot about his insecurity, and, if he 'is' so insecure perhaps he should have kept the self redefining under wraps till he could stride forth in nylons and not give a damn what any one has to say.
*shrug*
Agreed. But, to be of any use: language should accurately describe external reality.
Calling a boy 'girl' (just 'cause the boy insists) is not an accurate description of external reality.
Ibram may be accurately describing the contents of his head with 'she', but his subjective assessment doesn't trump the reality that 'he' (nothing more than a descriptor for *maleness) is not 'she' (nothing more than a descriptor for *femaleness).
*both, fundamentally, matters of DNA and therefore independent of Ibram’s self-definition.
both, fundamentally, matters of DNA and therefore independent of Ibram’s self-definition
Of course, if transsexualism has a biological component, then it is not independent of the DNA.
"if transsexualism has a biological component, then it is not independent of the DNA"
Sure. I await the evidence. If there is -- biologically -- a 'third sex', I'll happily adopt whatever pronouns are needed. Unfortunately, for Ibram, those pronouns won't be related to 'she' any more than 'he'.
#
"I'm sure you're not suggesting that all our life choices are only defensible if they are biologically bound."
I'm not suggesting that any one has to defend anything.
Again: that Ibram chooses to define himself as 'girl' is of no concern to me.
I haven't demanded he justify himself (his choices) to me or any one.
I simply point out that he is 'he' and I won't be calling him 'she'.
Other folks lay atop my assertion all manner of presumed agenda.
They're wrong but what the hey. Each should continue to assess me as each cares to.
I no more care about being called, for example, troll, than I care how Ibram self-defines.
Sure. I await the evidence. If there is -- biologically -- a 'third sex', I'll happily adopt whatever pronouns are needed. Unfortunately, for Ibram, those pronouns won't be related to 'she' any more than 'he'.
You agree, then that it is possible there is a biological component, and that TSs should be treated differently by you if there is.
~ voila, the middle ground, people! was that so difficult? ~
What if it's not DNA -- what if some condition is set up in the mother's womb which sets up the fetus to have feminine tendencies of some sort? Tendencies that make the emerging personality question its gender and identify with a different gender?
Not quite
proof positive, but pretty close!
If I demand to be called 'Lord God Quirk', will you comply?
I'm sorry. That user name is in use.
UT, as I said 'I await the evidence'...till then: 'he'.
"what if some condition is set up in the mother's womb which sets up the fetus to have feminine tendencies of some sort?"
See below.
#
Brian, I note in the title, 'Gender-Related Disorders'.
I note in the piece:
It has been hypothesized that prenatal DES exposure may also have led to behavioral effects in humans (Meyer-Bahlburg and Erhardt, 1986; Meyer-Bahlburg, et al., 1995). Primary studies exploring possible behavioral and psychiatric effects of prenatal DES exposure in males first appeared in the literature during the 1970s. DES exposure has been associated with increased potential for major depressive disorders and other psychiatric effects in males (Katz, et al., 1987; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1985; Pillard et al., 1993; Saunders, 1988; Vessey et al., 1983). Recent discussions of potential psychiatric effects of prenatal DES exposure, including gender-related effects and schizophrenia, have been presented by Verdoux (2000; 2004) and Boog (2004). Verdoux summarizes the research on DES in the psychiatric literature this way:
Sparse findings suggest that exposure to xenoestrogens such as diethylstilbestrol may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders, mediated by a possible deleterious impact of the substances on foetal neurodevelopment, but this hypothesis is speculative owing to the small number of studies and their methodological limitations (Verdoux, 2004).
...and...
•Among the most significant findings from this study is the high prevalence of individuals with confirmed or strongly suspected prenatal DES exposure who self-identify as male-to-female transsexual or transgender, and individuals who have reported experiencing difficulties with gender dysphoria.
In this study, more than 150 individuals with confirmed or suspected prenatal DES exposure reported moderate to severe feelings of gender dysphoria across the lifespan. For most, these feelings had apparently been present since early childhood. The prevalence of a significant number of self-identified male-to-female transsexuals and transgendered individuals as well as some individuals who identify as intersex, androgynous, gay or bisexual males has inspired fresh investigation of historic theories about a possible biological/endocrine basis for psychosexual development in humans, including sexual orientation, core gender identity, and sexual identity (Benjamin, 1973; Cohen-Kettenis and Gooren, 1999; Diamond, 1965, 1996; Michel et al, 2001; Swaab, 2004).
Let's assume for the moment Ibram is one of the individuals affected in the womb by xenoestrogens. To my thinking this simply means Ibram is a boy with a disorder, not a member of a 'third sex'.
Nice try though... ;)
For a 'third sex' to have the same the weight as 'male' and female' it must be natural, not the result of disorder or exposure to chemicals (natural or artificial introduced abnormally to the womb).
And, before anyone reacts badly: no, I in no way suggest the disordered boy should be 'fixed'. Again: I don't care how he live or self-defines...I simply choose not participate in that self-definition.
Nah...I think it's just simple courtesy.
If HQ wants to be called Lord God Quirk, it is absolutely no skin off my back to call him this.
If Ibram wants to be called Erica or she, it harms me not a bit to comply.
In both cases, doing as requested is courteous and polite. I've hurt no one by going along with the program. I'm intelligent enough to know that HQ is not MY Lord God, although maybe he's someone elses? I am aware that Ibram has the biological organs of a male, but if this is not what she feels defines her gender, who am I to argue?
I think it's terribly arrogant to assume that the only "definitions" that matter are the ones we personally know and use.
"Nah...I think it's just simple courtesy.'
I disagree, but, as you like.
#
"I think it's terribly arrogant to assume that the only "definitions" that matter are the ones we personally know and use."
And I believe it arrogant to twist descriptors into meaning 'nothing'.
*shrug*
But, as you like.
UT, as I said 'I await the evidence'...till then: 'he'.
So you said. Inherent in that statement is that you
don't know whether evidence was been or will be brought.
Psychology has forever labeled certain traits "disorder", only to learn later that they were only considered disorder because of the cultural norms of the day.
Such was homosexuality, which was considered to be due to uncorrected personality traits* up to about three decades ago.
And gays, as a result, were (and are) treated so incredibly poorly. Well, we
didn't know.
*[size=1]
by Robyn Hitchcock[/size]
Nah...I think it's just simple courtesy.
If HQ wants to be called Lord God Quirk, it is absolutely no skin off my back to call him this.
Can I call you Betty?
I wanted to comment but don't really feel like bringing my own uncorrected personality traits into the discussion so I'll just say that I *heart* Robyn Hitchcock and leave.
Can I call you Betty?
As you like...
If you'll be my bodyguard. I can be your long lost pal. I can call you Betty And Betty when you call me. You can call me Al.
If Ibram pretends to be a woman, there is no cost to me.
If I -- knowing Ibram is male -- pretend he's a 'she' then I lie (to myself) and in the lie, I diminish myself, to myself.
That Ibram lies to himself is irrelevant to me: that I lie to myself to make Ibram feel good is a high price I won't pay.
lol Bullshit.
If I demand to be called 'Lord God Quirk', will you comply?
I'm no more a 'lord' or a 'god' than Ibram is a woman, but his demand is complied with, so, why not mine?
Because to do so makes you a liar and a bit of an idiot.
So, if you lie and engage in idiocy calling me 'Lord God Quirk', then, maybe, you lie and engage in idiocy calling a 'he' a 'she'.
But: do as you like...I certainly will.
And: If Ibram is secure in his self-definition, then it shouldn't matter if some jackass refuses to call him 'her'.
That he is so offended by my lack of compliance says a lot about his insecurity, and, if he 'is' so insecure perhaps he should have kept the self redefining under wraps till he could stride forth in nylons and not give a damn what any one has to say.
*shrug*
Your archaic views on gender identification are showing...still.
If I -- knowing Ibram is male -- pretend he's a 'she' then I lie (to myself) and in the lie, I diminish myself, to myself.
:facepalm: Well, if
that's how you see it, then that's yer deal, but IMO, you're seriously messed up in the head.
If I demand to be called 'Lord God Quirk', will you comply?
Again, :facepalm:
UT: your point?
#
Lord God Quirk: nice name... ;)
#
Ali, John: not worth responding to.
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
Here's something I've been thinking of lately.
So let's say I announce to my african-american cow orkers that I 'feel' black and therefore I would like to be considered black. I want to fill out forms and check 'african-american.' I've never felt white (probably 'cause I'm such a good dancer) and I don't want to BE white. I want to be more susceptible to sickle cell anemia. I want to be counted in the 'black vote' and I want them all to acknowledge that YES, I am black.
They'd laugh me right out of the office. What the fuck do you know about being black? You were raised in a white household and you went to an almost all white school out in the boondocks. You went to a predominately white church. We love that you want to be black but YOU ARE NOT.
So I argue that I perceive myself as black, and if they don't start addressing me as "sistah" I'm going to get very angry. How dare they tell me I'm not black, just because they've actually experienced what it is to be black in this society?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Exactly!
{{head explodes}}
Ding ding ding!!! We has a winna!
*shakes head*
Yeah. 'cause it's just like that.
Y'know, sometimes, just sometimes, the Cellar really depresses me.
Callous, disregarding, cold. Cruel for cruelty's sake. This thread is a bully's thread and you're all fucking revelling in it.
Count me out. This has really got under my skin. I thought this was a better place and I thought I had nicer friends.
Explain how it's different?
Explain how it's cold? It's a valid fucking point. It's refutable, if you'd like.
Maybe you should be out because I know I'LL never be what you think I should be.
Cold? Callous? Fucking get off your goddam highest motherfucking horse on earth and quit fucking judging me.
Right. Fuck you right in the eyeball.
Really Dana? Why & How is it different?
I struggle (A LOT) to put some of my thoughts into words on the screen.
I think IM did that very clearly.
I'm still freaking out here.
How in the world was making that comparison wrong and why am I cold and callous?
I've alluded to it before: but you are at times the cruelest person here.
Ok, though I'll explain: there is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that gender is less simple that we have previously considered. Quite aside from those people who are born physically male but 'feel' female. There are all sorts of variations on the theme. Differences in hormonal makeup for instance. Sexuality and sexual orientation are extroardinarily complex pyschologically. It is a fundamental part of every person's identity, it is a fundamental part of everybody's psychological and physical development.
The colour of one's skin is pretty much set from birth. The only psycholotgical impact of skin colour is where it places you in the world. Skin colour does not bring with it an ever shifting, ever developing hormonal stew. Skin colour and 'race' do not show any differences in brain structure or function.
Differences in gender and in psychosexual development are also, in many (maybe even most) cases refletced in differences within the brain structure or function, or within the hormonal make up.
Why that angered me and got under my skin?
You were using Reductio ad absurdum to argue that a born male who self-identifies as female has no right to expect the world or any people in it to respect that.
Nice work Infi. Colour me impressed. What's your next trick?
Yes, maybe I am cruel. In this thread right now, I am being cruel. To someone I really like and care for. because in my absolute honest opinion you are being an out and out bitch. And that grates...because I know you arent one.
What I 'revel' in is the inability of supposedly bright folks to defend a position (to call a he 'she') beyond appealing to 'courtesy' and shifting cultural norms.
The question is simple: is Ibram a boy or a girl?
Objectively: he is 'he'.
I think I've nailed that on the head.
I think IM nailed that on the head.
You have no refutation so you stomp your feet and storm off.
Good riddance.
Cite some, great defender.
Bullshit. A person could have a lineage other than their obvious one.
You're a fucking bitch, and that's all there is to it. Reductio ad bitchem.
Go to hell.
"a born male who self-identifies as female has no right to expect the world or any people in it to respect that"
What such a person can expect is to be left to his own self-definition.
It is absurd for such a person to expect any one else to participate in what is a falsehood (that he is 'she').
Lie to yourself as you like, Dana...lie to Ibram as you like, Dana...I won't, and no amount of name-calling or appeals to the nastiness of the world will move me.
And just so you dont get the wrong impression that this is all about you:
I'm pretty pissed off with a few people in this thread. Not least classicman who appears to be doing a bang up impression of a cheerleader every time you post something sharp.
...again: good riddance.
So many who express an outrage (as though being outraged is enough, as if being outraged means something), but when called out (evidence please!) run far and fast.
Be ashamed.
You know, I really thought it was a point to ponder. Written in my typical hand of wit, but a point indeed. If you didn't agree, you could have said so and said why.
But no, you go off on me and make me feel small and stupid for thinking of it. You throw in your little Lifetime Scholar Debate words. You imply a lot of people should have their pitchforks in their hand in response to ME, and there is something WRONG with them if they don't.
This is why you are cruel. I've not been cruel to Ibram. I've said I don't understand. I've tried to think of how maybe I could feel something similar. I've tried to discuss (with the exception of the ever unpleasant Drax) but you don't like that so you aim to hurt.
Yes, Dana, you. You aimed to hurt.
I can understand your disappointment in some people in the Cellar. Will you ever see that in your unending crusade to right all that is wrong you HURT people who are really only trying to get along, understand, and goddammit maybe even laugh about it sometimes.
The most obvious sign of a person who has no class is that they are regularly pointing out why others are 'lesser'.
Wasn't running. Just finding it all really distasteful. Not as an abstract topic. If that's all this was I owuldnt be upset. But because this was specifically targeted at an individual.
It's cruel, and fucking low rent.
I approach gender from a histrorical perspective, so although I have done some reading around transgender issues (as part of my work with the Adult Health and Social care Scruitiny panel during my time as a councillor) most of what I have readily to hand is to do with eighteenth-century gender constructions.
However, a quick google nets quite a bit of stuff. Starting with:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7689007.stm
Australian researchers have identified a significant link between a gene involved in testosterone action and male-to-female transsexualism.
DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene.
The genetic difference may cause weaker testosterone signals, the team reported in Biological Psychiatry.
However, other genes are also likely to play a part, they stressed.
Increasingly, biological factors are being implicated in gender identity.
One study has shown that certain brain structures in male-to-female transsexual people are more "female like".
In the latest study, researchers looked for potential differences in three genes known to be involved in sex development - coding for the androgen receptor, the oestrogen receptor and an enzyme which converts testosterone to oestrogen.
Comparison of the DNA from the male to female transsexual participants with 258 controls showed a significant link with a long version of the androgen receptor gene and transsexualism.
Testosterone
It is known that longer versions of the androgen receptor gene are associated with less efficient testosterone signalling.
This reduced action of the male sex hormone may have an effect on gender development in the womb, the researchers speculated.
"We think that these genetic differences might reduce testosterone action and under masculinise the brain during foetal development," said researcher Lauren Hare from Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research.
Co-author Professor Vincent Harley added: "There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops."
Although this is the largest genetic study of transsexualism to date, the researchers now plan to see if the results can be replicated in a larger population.
Terry Reed from the Gender Identity Research and Education Society said she was convinced of a biological basis to transsexualism.
"This study appears to reinforce earlier studies which have indicated that, in some trans people, there may be a genetic trigger to the development of an atypical gender identity.
"However, it may be just one of several routes and, although it seems extremely likely that a biological element will always be present in the aetiology of transsexualism, it's unlikely that developmental pathways will be the same in all individuals."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7689007.stmYou know, I really thought it was a point to ponder. Written in my typical hand of wit, but a point indeed. If you didn't agree, you could have said so and said why.
But no, you go off on me and make me feel small and stupid for thinking of it. You throw in your little Lifetime Scholar Debate words. You imply a lot of people should have their pitchforks in their hand in response to ME, and there is something WRONG with them if they don't.
This is why you are cruel. I've not been cruel to Ibram. I've said I don't understand. I've tried to think of how maybe I could feel something similar. I've tried to discuss (with the exception of the ever unpleasant Drax) but you don't like that so you aim to hurt.
Yes, Dana, you. You aimed to hurt.
I can understand your disappointment in some people in the Cellar. Will you ever see that in your unending crusade to right all that is wrong you HURT people who are really only trying to get along, understand, and goddammit maybe even laugh about it sometimes.
The most obvious form of a person who has no class is always pointing out why others are 'lesser.'
I honestly thought you were using an absurd example to make your point. My apologies.
But I do think you've been cruel to Ibs. Maybe unintentionally. I do think this thread is cruel to its core though. because as I said above, it isn't an abstract matter, it is real and it is someone's life. Someone here.
Given your particular connection with issues around mental health: how would you feel if in order to discuss whether or not depression is over diagnosed someone started a thread to discuss it and used you as an example of someone who'd been misdiagnosed and was on the party pills unecessarily?
I have been over harsh. I'm sorry Inf.
"...there is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that gender is less simple that we have previously considered. Quite aside from those people who are born physically male but 'feel' female."
Thing is: as pointed out up-thread, 'feeling' like a girl doesn't alter the fact that he is a boy. Reality trumps self-definition (or feelings of a bleeding heart).
#
"There are all sorts of variations on the theme. Differences in hormonal makeup for instance. Sexuality and sexual orientation are extraordinarily complex psychologically. It is a fundamental part of every person's identity, it is a fundamental part of everybody's psychological and physical development."
Indeed it is complex and Ibram should indulge his notions about his gender as he likes. The universe, however, doesn't care how he views himself. I take my cues from 'it', not him.
#
"The colour of one's skin is pretty much set from birth. The only psycholotgical impact of skin colour is where it places you in the world. Skin colour does not bring with it an ever shifting, ever developing hormonal stew. Skin colour and 'race' do not show any differences in brain structure or function.'
Er, that he has a cock and you a pussy is also pretty much set from birth.
DNA does not lie and it isn't altered by 'hormonal stew'. As posted up-thread, a significant number of folks who identify as transsexual may have been exposed to xenoestregens(sic). This makes, at least for those folks, their 'feeling' a disorder.
Again: not suggesting such folks need fixing...am suggesting such folks -- regardless of how they each go with or against those 'feelings' -- need to stop demanding obvious contradictions (he as she) be embraced by others.
"It is known that longer versions of the androgen receptor gene are associated with less efficient testosterone signalling"
I read this as disorderd.
Why?
Even if the above applies to Ibram: he still has male DNA, 'is' male, is 'he'.
Henry, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion of what that all means in practice, as we all are.
I'm just having a hard time understanding why you had to start a whole thread to discuss someone else's gender. Y'know, you want to tackle this shit when Ibs pulls you up for saying 'he' well that's just fine. Don't like it, but hey, when have either of ever particularly liked the other's point of view? But starting a thread about this was cruel. Unecessarily cruel.
Ibs is strident and a tad precious about it all at times, but one reason for that is the journey she has gone on to arrive at this point. She is also still young. With all the brazen zeal of the young. But the young, and particularly those who have struggled to such a degree with their sense of identity are also fragile.
This thread is cruel. Your views are your views, but this thread is unnecessry and cruel.
"you are absolutely entitled to your opinion"
But, Dana, that's (one of my) point(s): that he is 'he' is not an opinion, it 'is' fact.
He may 'feel' like a she, but he is not a 'she'.
#
"I'm just having a hard time understanding why you had to start a whole thread to discuss someone else's gender."
Strictly speaking this thread is about appropriate use of pronouns.
Gender (Ibram's) is just the specific example of misuse.
#
"...starting a thread about this was cruel. Unecessarily cruel."
Eye of the beholder.
#
"Ibs is strident and a tad precious about it all at times, but one reason for that is the journey she has gone on to arrive at this point. She is also still young. With all the brazen zeal of the young. But the young, and particularly those who have struggled to such a degree with their sense of identity are also fragile."
All possibly true. All irrelevant.
#
"This thread is cruel. Your views are your views, but this thread is unnecessry and cruel."
Again: eye of the beholder.
Your participation (as well as Ibram's) is solely your (and his) responsibility.
If you view this as an exercise in cruelty: then opt out or defend him with fact.
Again: appeals to courtesy are irrelevant.
Again: appeals to courtesy are irrelevant.
Yep. I got that.
Dana - I agree with you - it was Ibs posting which "sparked" the thought of starting this thread.
Calling me a "cheerleader for IM - Are you high? seriously! Have you not been around the last few YEARS? ferfuxache :headshake
Moving along...
Where we part ways is that it was cruel... unnecessary.. whatever. Why? How?
I think the cellar is a fantastic place and this is EXACTLY what we should be doing. Ibs came out to us all freely. Fine. No we are done with that/him/her/shim/whatever. Lets actually talk, share thoughts, discuss the issue. If not here, where? Again - the OP was:
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes? No? Opinions?
I'll try and start with something you posted. Again -
leave ibs out of it. Lets try to keep it
GENERAL, not specific.
The colour of one's skin is pretty much set from birth. The only psychological impact of skin colour is where it places you in the world. Skin colour does not bring with it an ever shifting, ever developing hormonal stew. Skin colour and 'race' do not show any differences in brain structure or function.
One's gender is also. To the rest of your post - Really? One's psyche is not affected by skin color? Oh please share with me how that works. I have zero proof, but my initial reaction is to disagree wholeheartedly.
snip--
Ali, John: not worth responding to.
Perhaps. But because it is not worth it to you does not make them wrong.
#
Just because you consider something "absurd", that does not make it wrong. You can be the author of your own reality; so can Ibram. Your definitions lose potency the farther you extend them from yourself. Especially in this case, when you try to project them onto other who have greater, dare I say, more intimate knowledge of what they're talking about.
"...because it is not worth it to you does not make them wrong"
If you actually read both of those folks' most recent posts in this thread you'll find neither actually says anything. That's why neither is worth responding to (in this thread).
#
"Your definitions lose potency the farther you extend them from yourself."
I see: so this applies to Ibram as well, yes?
If not: why?
Keep in mind: over and over and over I've said I don't care how Ibram self-defines, I simply refuse to participate in that self-definition by calling him 'her'.
#
"...greater, dare I say, more intimate knowledge of what they're talking about."
What 'greater' knowledge?
He feels like she...fine by me...not disputing the depth or veracity of his feelings...am disputing that he actually 'is' she.
Given your particular connection with issues around mental health: how would you feel if in order to discuss whether or not depression is over diagnosed someone started a thread to discuss it and used you as an example of someone who'd been misdiagnosed and was on the party pills unecessarily?
I see now. Ya know, it never was about her.
You want some evidence about the fact that
there is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that gender is less simple that we have previously considered
Cite some, great defender.
Ok, a quick (0.41 seconds) google search on the word "gender" turned up this:
gen·der/ˈjendər/
Noun:
(in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) Each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns...[or pronouns]
The property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to such a class: "adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number".
Synonyms:
genus - kind - species - sort
More info »Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
Gender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity, masculinity and others described as third gender. Depending on the context, the describing characteristics vary ...
Gender roles - Gender identity - Third gender - Grammatical gender
What is 'Gender' ?
www.itu.int/gender/about/gender.html
Dec 20, 2001 – ITU GGI selection of definitions on 'Gender' ? Gender refers to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female ...
What Is Gender? • Index page
www.whatisgender.net/
Community Information: Topics: Posts: Last post. Forum Rules and Announcements Rules, Announcements and other important information. READ HERE FIRST ...
Eldis - What is gender?
www.eldis.org › Home › Topics › Dossiers › Trade and gender
'Gender' refers to the socially constructed roles of and relations between men and women, while 'Sex' refers to biological characteristics which define humans ...
You opened this thread with a ridiculous and nitpicky complaint about pronoun usage. Ok, let's stick with that. You then try to support your position by introducing statements about Ibram's penis. This quick screenshot of the top hits from google about "gender", your main subject, don't mention penis at all. It's not about penis, hq.
All of our interactions that rely on language depend for their success on a shared understanding of the words we use. You've made clear your understanding of some of these words, like gender and penis. Ok. I don't share your narrow view of these words. Lots of other folks have also indicated the difference between your opinion and theirs. That's ok too. As long as we're talking about grammar and language, sure, plenty of room for our conversation.
But you seem to want to have a definitive ... scientific, absolute certainty about the situation. You bring up hypotheses about penises and dna, etc. I'd like to question your methods here. If they're sound, perhaps they'll stand up. What, exactly, do you know about Ibram's penis? What are your sources. You challenge others for cites of their propositions, I challenge you. And if the discussion is really about Ibram, penis bearer, why are you so wrapped around the axle about pronouns? I just don't see your evidence supporting your claim that "penis equals he". Let's see your cites.
Lotta black and white thinking here, without any room for gray.
It's either/or, can never change or adapt or mutate or be "different"...
Hmmph. I disagree.
Hermaphrodites are both he and she. Are they just nothing then?
Some of what many of you seem to be saying is that we know everything there is to know about gene biology, that once we are born, our genes are set and clearly defined as a simple XX or XY.
And that is simply not the case.
My point is, there is a lot more to gender than just what is between our legs. And I see no reason anyone has to be confined to such simplistic labels as he or she just because humankind has a great deal to learn about genomics.
Genomics
Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.
Dana's right, not very many here would purposely start a thread meant to blindside another poster's current struggle.
I dont mind calling Ibram a her, although I probably will stumble a lot and use him by mistake. The science of it doesnt really play into it, either.
"...because it is not worth it to you does not make them wrong"
If you actually read both of those folks' most recent posts in this thread you'll find neither actually says anything. That's why neither is worth responding to (in this thread).
#
"Your definitions lose potency the farther you extend them from yourself."
I see: so this applies to Ibram as well, yes?
If not: why?
Keep in mind: over and over and over I've said I don't care how Ibram self-defines, I simply refuse to participate in that self-definition by calling him 'her'.
#
"...greater, dare I say, more intimate knowledge of what they're talking about."
What 'greater' knowledge?
He feels like she...fine by me...not disputing the depth or veracity of his feelings...am disputing that he actually 'is' she.
I did read them. They do actually say things. Your implication that I hadn't read them makes your argument baseless. Addtionally, I agree with each of them. I agree with Ali's assessment of bullshit, and I think John's on target by asserting that you're messed up in the head as evidenced by his quote of yours. It is conceivable that you haven't read their posts. *shrug*
As for self definition. Sure. Sure it applies to Ibram as well. And if s/he defines as "she", she knows better than you. That greater knowledge is a more reliable source than what I can detect from here. YOU may have greater knowledge about Ibram's gender than I do, perhaps even equal to Ibram's... I doubt it, but if you do, I'd appreciate you sharing your greater ... credentials so I can adjust my understanding accordingly. If you don't, tha's ok, but I'll keep deferring to Ibram on this score until then.
The greater knowledge I spoke of is that Ibram knows Ibram better than you know Ibram. I doubt you dispute this.
"I agree with Ali's assessment of bullshit"
As you like. Again: she says nothing (*of value).
#
"I think John's on target"
See above.
#
"The greater knowledge I spoke of is that Ibram knows Ibram better than you know Ibram."
Yes, agreed...and -- AGAIN -- he can and should self-define as 'she' if that's what he likes. But: I'm obligated to 'what' exactly because of his self-definition?
##
"Hermaphrodites are both he and she. Are they just nothing then?"
Biologically disordered folks who can self-define as each cares to.
Mostly just folks who are different in some fashion. The difference obligates me 'what'?
#
"...once we are born, our genes are set and clearly defined as a simple XX or XY."
In the baseline that's it exactly. Divergence from the baseline is just that, 'divergence', not a re-defining of the baseline.
##
"*..."gender", your main subject..."
#
"But you seem to want to have a definitive ... scientific, absolute certainty about the situation."
I have certainty: Ibram is 'he', not 'she'.
His 'feeling' and self-definition (of she-ness, as she) is another matter irrelevant to the thread (despite great effort to conflate the two) except as it motivates him to claim he is 'she'.
#
"What, exactly, do you know about Ibram's penis? What are your sources.
In this forum: he announces his transgender status, moving, in his estimation, from 'he' to 'she'.
Typically: men have cocks.
Also: Ibram has never disputed any mention of his cock.
While not absolute proof of anything, the evidence is strong that Ibram has a cock.
#
I just don't see your evidence supporting your claim that "penis equals he".
Define: 'he' (as it pertains to a human individual).
Define: 'she' (as it pertains to a human individual).
Do this and you’ll have your evidence.
*if I'm guilty of anything in this thread (its later part), it is -- in haste -- not being as precise as I'd normally would be.
In the case of John and Ali: certainly both posted 'something'...what was posted, in my view, has real no value in moving the debate forward...she asserts 'bullshit"; he says I'm messed up in the head...not of value, in my view.
In the case of gender: I allowed folks to muddy the water by conflating 'gender' with my opening.
In the above areas, the confusion is my fault...apologies.
Henry, your definition of "gender" is wrong. you are incorrectly conflating "genetic sex", "physical sex", and "gender" - all three of which are vaguely related, but are still entirely separate.
The truth is that gender has been defined so many different ways by so many different cultures that you have NO grounds on which to claim "objectivity", "fact", or "science" behind your extremely narrow definition of it. And pronouns, any linguist can tell you, are used according to genders.
You have only your own narrow definition of gender to back your bigotry, and no possible way to "legitimately" defend that definition on any sort of factual, objective level.
you're stuck trying to defend your indefensibility by ignoring everything that contradicts your bigotry, and you know it.
"She", not "he", guys
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
Fine. Back to your opening post.
Hes are hes. Shes are shes.
Ibram's belief (whatever that may be) is absurd.
hq's belief (whatever that may be) is absurd. I cite your own logic surrounding Ali's and John's posts.
Your argument is unsound, as you are not obligated to do anything. Your opening post is a great big setup. You say it was hasty, sloppy. Ok.
I will agree that for human individuals, it is common to refer to those who have a penis as "he". I do not agree with your extensions of that line of reasoning, especially when it comes to defining gender. Nor do I agree with extensions of that line of reasoning that the usage of "he" implies having a penis.
What is this thread about hq? Is it about Ibram's penis? Is it about pronouns? Is it about feeling obligated? Is it about the frission of gender/language/anatomy? Are you seeking to learn something? Or are you seeking to state something? Are you striving to persuade others or are you trying to clarify your own understanding? Something else?
Do you give a shit what Ibram, or many others here say in their posts? Why are you bothering? What the hell is your point, man?
And by "man", I mean... "label written 'henry quirk' which is associated with posts on this forum". ffs.
"Henry, your definition of "gender" is wrong. you are incorrectly conflating "genetic sex", "physical sex", and "gender" - all three of which are vaguely related, but are still entirely separate."
Actually: no.
Read my OP...I mention 'gender' not once.
You introduced the term.
Again: my mistake was allowing you and others to conflate my *OP with gender.
*'If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite self-definition -- he is 'he'.'
#
"And pronouns, any linguist can tell you, are used according to genders."
Then, for my clarification...
Define: 'he' (as it pertains to a human individual).
Define: 'she' (as it pertains to a human individual).
Have a nice vacation hq.
:)
A study has shown that "there was rather a rather extended period of time in the history of the English language when the choice of a supposedly masculine personal pronoun (him) said nothing about the gender or sex of the referent."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He#cite_note-0
The word 'man' used to mean either gender, or could be used to refer to a male. A female would often be referred to (for example in early Anglo-saxon legal documents) as a 'man'. If it was necessary specifically to differentiate and make a point of the woman's gender they would be referred to as a 'wyfman'.
Yes, agreed...and -- AGAIN -- he can and should self-define as 'she' if that's what he likes. But: I'm obligated to 'what' exactly because of his self-definition?
You aren't obligated to...anything.
You choose to define gender (or Ibram's gender, specifically) however you wish and label accordingly.
You choose not to honor her request to use the female pronoun and that's entirely up to you.
No skin off my nose any more so than calling Ibram or another gender self-defined individual the pronoun of their choice. You may offend her, but again, that is your choice to do so.
...it just makes you a cunt is all.
Originally, I personally did not see this thread as an attack on Ib, and in all honesty I still don't.
What I do see wrong with it is the fact that Henry has posted it in a 'philosophy' forum, but he's looking for some kind of scientific justification for why he should be forced to do or say something which he clearly has no intention of doing, even in order to support a member of a community which he frequents, regardless of whether there is a cost to himself or not.
He claims some moral high ground about 'lying' to himself if he addresses a transgender person by their preferred pronoun, but to date has failed to explain how there can possibly be any cost to himself outside of cracking through the barriers of understanding to extend a little courtesy.
I say to you, if someone is introduced to you as Mr Schiznit, and then says, 'yeah, but you can call me Al'. would it be at some high moral cost to you to call that person Al instead of Mr Schiznit? Seriously, even if for some reason you held that person in high regard and felt comfortable calling them 'Mr', we can all get used to addressing people by their preferred name. Maybe Mr Schiznit really hates his surname and by addressing him as such, even if it feels right to you, it really sux for him, and you're not doing yourself any favours by continuing to do so, particularly if Mr Schiznit happens to be your boss or some other authority figure. In fact, not following Mr Schiznit's wishes may in fact end up being 'at great personal expense' to you!
I have a quick and easy solution.
Just refer to henry as "she." We can't be any more certain of her genitalia as anyone else's here, and since her personal self-identification doesn't matter, only whether we are being true to ourselves...
.
Nice call. Reminds me of another girl I knew in elementary school, named Libby. Her real name was Elizabeth, and there was also another Elizabeth in the class, but she went by Bess. Our originally-foreign teacher thought both these nicknames were just absurd.
Perhaps we'll have to resort to using hyphenated pronouns in which the first part recognizes self identification (in deference to the individual) and the second part recognizes genetic makeup to prevent deceptions. We could have him-her, her-him, his-hers, hers-his, he-she, she-he and those with physical traits of both sexes (by birth; or, medical intervention) could optionally use him&her, her&him, his&hers, hers&his, he&she, and she&he.
Of course, everyone would reserve the right to refer to someone they simply didn't like as she-he-it (pronounced "shit").
The only problem I have is that I've know Ibram as he for too long. So... I see Ibram as a male name.
Ib,
if being referred to as a she is really important, you might consider changing to a feminine login name.
...that said, I still call infinite monkey shaw, and pete's a taco dar. so no guarantees I'll get it right every time.
I don't mind when you call me shaw. In fact, I rather like it. :)
Ib,
if being referred to as a she is really important, you might consider changing to a feminine login name.
<--- psst ;)
aw, d00d. i didnt even notice that.
Ibby is still derivative of Ibram.
shit... d00dette.
but I call Ripley Ippy. hmmm... I'll try.
It's pronounced "Os Wee Pay"
Call people what you want. If you want them to respect you and respond to you in a pleasant and articulate way, you might want to refer to them in the way they prefer, no? QED as far as I can see. Me, I'm done with histrionic allegedly-young-adult attention whores who resort to name calling on a far too regular basis (;) [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]for the slooooow...), [/COLOR]and their cheerleading squad. The rest, I think, have valid points on both side of the argument, and have presented them fairly eloquently. I particularly liked Infi's black comparison, it may not be 100% allegoriacal -who knows- but it was thoughtful and well presented imho.
. To the rest of your post - Really? One's psyche is not affected by skin color? Oh please share with me how that works. I have zero proof, but my initial reaction is to disagree wholeheartedly.
I didn't say it had no effect on the pysche, but that any effect is entirely cultural.
There are many places in the world where people go their whole lives not seeing people of a different colour. In such a place a child is unlikely to consider their skin colour in any deeper terms than the shape of their foot, the colour of their hair, or the length of their fingers. It is simply a physical feature. They'd be aware of it. But not as an important issue of identity. Race likewise only becomes an important coponent of identity when set against other races. Unless one is raised in a place where races mix or are in tension, it need never be something consciously thought about during childhood.
There is nothing inherent about skin colour or 'race' to affect the development of a child. However, ALL children go through psycho-sexual development as they grow. beginning (if I remember my child psych correctly) around the age of three.
Psycho-sexual development is fundamental to the human experience, it is a fundamental process which all healthy humans go through. The way that manifests and what it means differs from one to another culture, but the fact of it's happening is universal.
Skin colour, literally is skin deep. There are no differences in brain structure, or in brain chemistry relating to skin colour.
Psycho-sexual identities appear to have correlating brain structrures and brain chemistry. Whilst the differences between 'male' and 'female' brains are minor, they are measurable. Work in his field continues to show that such measurable differences also exist between the brains of straight, gay and bisexual people. Similarly it seems from the work being done in this field that measurable differences exist between the brains of people with expected gender identities and people with trans gender identities.
It is really not the same thing as waking up one morning and thinking one is black when one is in fact white.
[eta] further to that: you could lock a child in a room from the age of 2 with no human company beyond the presentation of meals and the taking away of waste, and whilst they will probably be unable to get to grips woth language or social interaction, they will still have been through psycho-sexual development. The results would be warped, and confused, but the process would still have occurred.
Y'know, I was thinking about this thread when I went to bed last night. And it struck me that in fact it is academic. Because, unless my memory is more fucked up than I realise, Ibs never said she was a girl trapped in a boy's body. What Ibs actually said was that the CIS Male identity simply doesn't fit. A female identity also doesn't entirely fit. Ibs didn't want us to call her a 'she' at first. her preferred pronoun was in fact 'they'.
Most of us, myself included, balked at the idea of using 'they' and 'their' when referring to a named individual because it jars grammatically. 'She' and 'her' was the compromise position. Neither 'he' nor 'she' is entirely accurate, but of the two, 'she' is closest.
I may be misremembering this, but that's how I read it. Ibs is exploring her femininity, not claiming to be female.
Call people what you want. If you want them to respect you and respond to you in a pleasant and articulate way, you might want to refer to them in the way they prefer, no? QED as far as I can see. Me, I'm done with histrionic allegedly-young-adult attention whores who resort to name calling on a far too regular basis (;) [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]for the slooooow...), [/COLOR]and their cheerleading squad. The rest, I think, have valid points on both side of the argument, and have presented them fairly eloquently. I particularly liked Infi's black comparison, it may not be 100% allegoriacal -who knows- but it was thoughtful and well presented imho.
I missed Infi's black comparison, did it involve pots and kettles?
There are many places in the world where people go their whole lives not seeing people of a different colour. In such a place a child is unlikely to consider their skin colour in any deeper terms than the shape of their foot, the colour of their hair, or the length of their fingers. It is simply a physical feature. They'd be aware of it. But not as an important issue of identity. Race likewise only becomes an important component of identity when set against other races.
It is really not the same thing as waking up one morning and thinking one is black when one is in fact white.
No one said they were the same, but there are similarities and I believe the analogy warranted discussion.
For example - lets take your above scenario and introduce a person of a different color into that place.
Now what happens? How do you think that would impact/affect both "sides"?
Y'know, I was thinking about this thread when I went to bed last night. And it struck me that in fact it is academic. Because, unless my memory is more fucked up than I realise, Ibs never said she was a girl trapped in a boy's body. What Ibs actually said was that the CIS Male identity simply doesn't fit. A female identity also doesn't entirely fit. Ibs didn't want us to call her a 'she' at first. her preferred pronoun was in fact 'they'.
Most of us, myself included, balked at the idea of using 'they' and 'their' when referring to a named individual because it jars grammatically. 'She' and 'her' was the compromise position. Neither 'he' nor 'she' is entirely accurate, but of the two, 'she' is closest.
I may be misremembering this, but that's how I read it. Ibs is exploring her femininity, not claiming to be female.
yes&no. in actuality I reject the notion of binary gender entirely, and i am who i am. when you put the broken sexist blinders back on and "see gender" again, after that, i fall very much on the feminine side. Since I don't pass very well, and since it quite triggers my dysphoria on the matter to be reminded of that by constantly being called "sir" or "him", I'm pushing towards the other extreme stylistically until it no longer happens, until I "pass", for my own sake. I agree with Kate Bornstein that it's entirely possible to live a non-gendered life, when the haters and the bigots and the willfully ignorant get out of the way. but that isn't where I am right now. Right now I ask to be treated as a woman, with pronouns to match. some people just aren't very good at respect and decency is all. and some are just bigots.
yeah. Ok I get that. The rejection of polarised gender was what i was trying to get at but failing :p
Right now I ask to be treated as a woman, with pronouns to match. some people just aren't very good at respect and decency is all. and some are just bigots.
You missed the LARGEST group - those of us who aren't used to referring to you as a she when we've basically been condition over years to refer to you as a he.
Many of us, I assume, mean no disrespect to you and do not fall into any of those groups you've defined.
As I said before, i completely respect that it's hard to get used to. I'm sure it's going to take my parents years to get to that point.
there's a big difference between making a pronoun mistake and willfully deciding not to even try and get it right.
Henry is clearly the latter. IM appears to be going down that path in this thread and others.
other people are hit and miss. i dont hold it against someone if they get it wrong occasionally, but when they get it consistently wrong, even after a polite correction, it's another matter.
I'm not going around assuming that every "he" i get comes from a place of malice. its the ones that DO come from that place i have a problem with.
So, if I disagree with you about something and I say "That Ibby, she's just a dumb cuntless.", we're cool right?
This is your opinion, one which may or may not have a basis in fact.
What follows, however, is indisputably FACT...
You are XY (male), not XX (female).
Appeals to shifty cultural definitions or 'courtesy' cannot change this fact.
You are 'he'.
XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).
You may submit to surgery and injections to alter your flesh so you appear female, but -- till you re-code your DNA -- you're 'he'.
Again: self-define as you like, and any who interact with you should feel free to call you 'she'. For myself, however, I choose to call you 'he'.
In my view: you're disturbed, disordered, and I'll not contribute to your delusion. I don't oppose you, but I won't stand with you.
'nuff said.
Someone needs a cunt punt.
From a purely technical stand, I think Henry is correct.
Thankfully that is not the ONLY definition available.
Even from a purely technical stand, I think Henry is at best partially correct. There's plenty of evidence to suggest a genetic component to gender and sexuality, as well as a chromosomal component to gender dysmorphia.
And I still don't understand wtf he cares enough to start a whole thread about it, and when it becomes apparent that his opinion is causing offence and hurt he wouldn't just step away and leave the kid to be who she wants to be without being a total twat about it.
Whether his argument is technically valid or not (I happen to think not) he isn't arguing in a vacuum. He's talking about a real person here, with feelings that can be hurt.
You mentioned earlier Classic that this was a good opportunity to discuss and learn. Had this thread come from a kind place then I'd agree. But it manifestly comes from an unkind place.
He's a fucking bully. He's couching it in unemotional, logical argument but the whole purpose of this thread imo was to cause hurt to Ibby. The timing of it alone suggests that. It was in response to an argument in another thread where henry and others felt Ibbs wasn't practising what she preached about tolerance, with Klyde. This thread was started in the context of teaching Ibs a lesson and making her uncomfortable.
Bullying fuck.
He's a fucking bully...whole purpose ...cause hurt... ...response to an argument ...Ibbs ... tolerance, ... teaching a lesson ... uncomfortable.
Bullying fuck.
I thought we covered all that already.
We were drifting away and turning THAT shit-storm into a positive open discussion.
thanks for dragging it back up & stirring the shit again.
Right because Henry's last submission wasn't attacking Ibby at an identity level.
I got angry all over again.
I never thought I'd miss MaggieL...
In my view: you're disturbed, disordered, and I'll not contribute to your delusion. I don't oppose you, but I won't stand with you.
The medical treatment for gender identity disorder is "harm reduction" which means hormone therapy and sex reassignment.
So: either it's physiological, or it's so deeply embedded in the psychology, that trying to "fix it" by insisting on coaxing away a "delusion" is more harmful to the subject.
Medicine appears to not agree with you Henry.
Also, time has shown me that pretty much all humans are disturbed and disordered. Only some of them can't help but show it. The only human not disturbed and disordered is glatt. Doctors are examining him to try to figure out how he became a highly grounded and normal individual.
The only human not disturbed and disordered is glatt. Doctors are examining him to try to figure out how he became a highly grounded and normal individual.
It's funny because it's true.
Right because Henry's last submission wasn't attacking Ibby at an identity level.
I got angry all over again.
And Ibs post before that wasn't attacking Henry? :right:
They are both adults and can handle themselves. Let them work it out.
Sooner or later one will rise above and stop. (hopefully)
And Ibs post before that wasn't attacking Henry? :right:
That depends on how you define 'attack' and whether that definition also includes responding to another's attack.
It's also on a very different level. Calling someone names and swearing at them is a very different thing to calling into question their whole sense of self.
Let's face it, it isn't exactly an uncommon feature of bullying to provoke the subject of it into retaliation and then let everybody blame them for 'attacking' or starting trouble.
[/quote]
They are both adults and can handle themselves. Let them work it out.
Sooner or later one will rise above and stop. (hopefully)
I sort of agree. But one is significantly younger than the other and has openly spoken of struggling with body dysmorphia. This kind of shit is not helpful. And yes, Ibbs walks into it sometimes. But I remember 21. For all the strident, self-righteous certainty I expressed and indeed felt, at another level I was only just an adult and self-certainty was new and fragile.
Ibbs can absolutely handle herself. But that doesn't mean there isn't damage dealt along the way. And no amount of insults to Henry can offer the same potential for hurt and harm as his denial of Ibb's sense of self might.
Ok. You're right though. I am not making things better. And we are going round in circles anyway.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder#Treatment"]Also, time has shown me that pretty much all humans are disturbed and disordered. Only some of them can't help but show it. The only human not disturbed and disordered is glatt. Doctors are examining him to try to figure out how he became a highly grounded and normal individual.
I just got back from being away for a few days, and was slogging my way through this long thread, following the ebbs and flows of it and really got a chuckle out of this last bit.
That depends on how you define 'attack' and whether that definition also includes responding to another's attack.
BS - Who struck first? Its tit for tat now and will never end. AND you are helping.
Let's face it, it isn't exactly an uncommon feature of bullying to provoke the subject of it into retaliation and then let everybody blame them for 'attacking' or starting trouble.
and another tangent ... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This kind of shit is not helpful.
And you think you are helping? Not from here you aren't. The thread was heading into another direction of open discussion NOT on them.
And you keep bringing it back. Lemme put it this way - stop helping.
But one is significantly younger than the other... [then]
Ibbs can absolutely handle herself.
Then STFU and lets ALL move on.
Ok. You're right though. I am not making things better. And we are going round in circles anyway.
Agreed - I probably should have read this part before responding... oh well.
:p
Who struck first? I'd say the person who started a thread about gender identity aimed specifically at an individual with gender issues.
And now....I'll stfu and move on.
I gotta agree with Dana here. This thread is just cow manure. I'm putting this thread on my mental ignore list.
The only human not disturbed and disordered is glatt. Doctors are examining him to try to figure out how he became a highly grounded and normal individual.
I just got back from being away for a few days, and was slogging my way through this long thread, following the ebbs and flows of it and really got a chuckle out of this last bit.
But don't you know, it's always the nice ones! If glatt ever does have a breakdown, it's going to be
spectacularly big.
[YOUTUBE]-eREiQhBDIk[/YOUTUBE]
I just got back from being away for a few days ...
Was that for your annual reunion in Trinidad, Colorado?
You can't prove anything.
The reunion has been moved to San Jose, CA.
Just sayin'
Ib,
if being referred to as a she is really important, you might consider changing to a feminine login name.
.
yes&no. in actuality I reject the notion of binary gender entirely,
Well, how about Pat or Terry or maybe Chris or Jo/e?
or Tits Magee?
It's my birthday and once again I'm announcing it in a non-birthday related thread to make it a tad harder to find previous years' guesses. That's right, you get to guess my age and if you get it right I'll fess up. One guess per person, sockpuppets ineligible, no proxy guesses (i.e. lurkers must register to guess), and no hints will be given. Guessing ends at midnight tonight Cellar time. If you guess wrong, I'll refer to you with pronouns opposite the gender you self identify with for the rest of the month [today and tomorrow :)]. Good luck.
29
It's also my Sister's and my Daughter's birthday today! (2 separate people)
In MY wallet is a driver's license that says my date of birth is June 29th. I'd like to be entertained by speculation about my age.
I've made it to another BD so you get to guess my age again. One guess per person and if someone gets it by midnight (US Eastern Time) I'll fess up.
c'mon people. don't let this sexobonoboxes person of indeterminate gender win 3 years in a row! If we ALL guess, our chances are good. You gotta figure at least 25, just because this is not an idiot.... and most likely less than 70. the median age around here seems to be about 38-40. I wish I had thought about it a little before blurting my guess out.
I think people don't guess because then there would be nothing to look forward to next June 29th.
@jimhelm - better luck next year lady
@infinite monkey - nice try fella
I always picture you as a genteel southern belle, older but sharp as a whip.
sexobon holds his cards close to his chest, but he alluded to an interesting military career a while ago, so I would guess that he's on the older side. W ith more experience under his belt. Sexobon, you're 56.
@Undertoad: [post=816954]"You're such a girl UT."[/post] - Aliantha
@glatt - sorry sister
so far we've guessed (correcting previous years to reflect current age)
29
31
43
44
49
50
56
63
64
68
68
71
So don't go guessing 69 next year, peeps.
I should've stayed with my first guess. Who knew we'd be getting a fancy schmancy up to date listing?
I'll guess 52, not "50 as well."
so far we've guessed (correcting previous years to reflect current age)
29
31
43
44
49
50
56
63
64
68
68
71
Note to self: tablestakes *only* when playing Mastermind against footfootfoot.
My guess:
45 years old this year. Happy birthday regardless. :)
@footfootfoot - Off on the wrong foot, tootsie.
@BigV - A feminine pronoun would be superfluous, we all know what the V stands for
@footfootfoot - Off on the wrong foot, tootsie.
@BigV - A feminine pronoun would be superfluous, we all know what the V stands for
:D
You might call me a "squatter" and you'd be right. But only insofar (lol me I said insofar) as I am a non owner occupier.
On a different note, you are a very funny man and I appreciate your razor wit.
@Clodfobble - dude, no way
@Clodfobble - dude, no way
Methinks thou doth protest too much. I urge others to vote in the vicinity of 54.
@Stormieweather - Don't know why, you're a no go guy ...
@orthodoc - Doctor, doctor, Mr. MD, that's not in my history
Crap. I bet you're in your 30s. Too late for me, somebody else try before midnight ...
And Happy Birthday sexobon, however old you are! May you always be well stocked with good friends and good wine.
@monster - you da man, da wrong man
[Cellar time: "All times are GMT -5. The time now is --:-- -M."]
I OMG I win! first thing I ever won!!!!!!!!
The masculine pronouns I used should be a hint to the others that the guessing is still open.
Guessing is now closed .... are you going to 'fess up? Or leave us in painful suspense???
The masculine pronouns I used should be a hint to the others that the guessing is still open.
But I am a bloke.....
Thank you all for playing WTFAGERFN. Unfortunately, there was still no winner in this 3rd iteration.
Remember, you can play the same numbers again next year (recommended only if you believe your guess was high, duh).
This has been an unorthodox interruption. We now return you to your typical thread drift.
But I am a bloke.....
If I played by those rules, I wouldn't have to fess up to my chronological age, just to the age I self identify with (which could change at anytime). ;)
So these are the ages he's not, as of 2012. we need a more cohesive strategy if he is going to play again next year.
29
31
43
44
45
48
49
50
52
53
54
56
62
63
64
68
68
71
But do you know the way?
:lol:
Compare and contrast:
John is a knob!
Discuss.
If I'd had a point, I'd have made it.
You'll note the subtitle on my post.
Knob.
I think the judge made a good decision, including the parts of the decision to be made by others with greater knowledge of such specifics like where and when to schedule the surgery and where to imprison him after the surgery.
I think they should have executed him after he murdered his wife, and saved a whole lot of money and bullshit.
Woulda been a good place to start, yeah.
the story says very little about the circumstances of his trial, except that he murdered his wife. do you believe all murderers deserve to be executed?
My Googling skilz are not good enough to uncover the original news and trial.
Anyone in MA? Can you look in the news archives and see?
No more than you believe all murderers deserve to be set free (or locked away for a lifetime).
Irrelevant in any event.
The piece is about one guy who killed, not all folks who killed.
I assume (perhaps wrongly) his jail time is justified...I also assume (perhaps wrongly) that he might deserve a bullet in the head.
So sue me.
*shrug*
Maybe he killed her in a really sweet way. Lovingly strangled her? Caressed her to ribbons? Smothered her with the finest french silk pillows?
then why did you say executing him would have been a good place to start?
As I said: I made an assumption (perhaps right, perhaps wrong).
Again: sue me.
Go take it up with Bruce if you're lookin' for a tussle.
Me: not interested.
Did I miss somewhere that details why sex change surgery is medically necessary for this guy? And when I mean medically necessary, I mean necessary like a stint for a blocked artery or skin grafts for a severe burn or neonatal care for a baby and/or mother with really bad timing?
How does not changing him keep him in bad health? And if it's mental health they're talking about, don't they have head docs for that?
“It is unusual to treat a prisoner suffering severely from a gender identity disorder differently than the numerous inmates suffering from more familiar forms of mental illness,” wrote Judge Wolf, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. “It is not permissible for prison officials to do so just because the fact that a gender identity disorder is a major mental illness not understood by much of the public and the required treatment for it is unpopular.”
Judge Wolf acknowledged that Mr. Kosilek, a convicted murderer, may receive better care for his disorder than many law-abiding Americans.
“It may seem strange that in the United States citizens do not generally have a constitutional right to adequate medical care, but the Eighth Amendment promises prisoners such care,” he wrote, pointing to a 2011 Supreme Court decision that said providing anything less was “incompatible with the concept of human dignity.”
Judge Wolf said correction officials, not himself, should decide where the surgery should take place, who should perform it and where Kosilek should be incarcerated after the surgery.
The whole thing is ludicrous. So now we're supposed to once again consider gender identity issues as major mental disorders? What happened to how fluid gender is and how natural it is when the lines are blurred?
I'm confused.
Anyway, Imma go murder my husband so I can go to prison. I'd really like to look like Catherine Zeta Jones and I need some surgery to get there.
Oh, I don't have a husband. Shoot.
*backs away slowly from the coming flames*
Oh, I don't have a husband. Shoot.
Just order one! Satisfaction not guaranteed...
*Agreed.
*But: my own views ('he' is not interchangeable with 'she') are already posted in this thread over and over, so I have no need to beat that drum again.
Just order one! Satisfaction not guaranteed...
Oh my. I couldn't pick on so I did the compatibility test. I was hooked up with Arnaud, who only smells (how you say) a little. :lol:
Genders are not interchangeable. You are what you are between your ears.
I do not go back and forth, as the situation demands. I am a female. Period. That I was born with male parts is fixable now. And when it's all said and done, I will be a woman. With female parts. Period. I don't get to say I'm a man now because the mechanic is lying to me again. Or I really want that job but they don't hire women for it. Or because it's Tuesday.
Transsexuals generally do not go in for anything other than the binary gender paradigm. (I've always wanted to use that word!) We only want to fit in to the existing norm. It's the others on the TG spectrum that want to play games with gender. Live and let live, I say.
I do not agree with discriminating against anyone on the basis of their appearance, even if it makes you uncomfortable. *I* happen to dislike bigots. But do I go around saying they should not be permitted to breed? Or should be rounded up and exiled? Or shot? No. Yet this is what transsexuals live with daily.
Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
The judge ruled properly, yet I still wish it had been someone other than a prisoner, because the resulting news coverage may hurt us as much as help us.
I truly hope that this decision stands, not for the benefit of prisoners, but because it can have ripple effects for us all.
More and more
health plans are covering Hormone Replacement Therapy, counseling and even surgery for transsexuals. One day soon, Medicare will cover it too, I hope. That, I believe, will sway a majority of health plans.
Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
Just to be clear, I didn't suggest it was a mental illness. That was the judge's justification for allowing the surgery to proceed. The problem, then, is not that the person in question is a prisoner, but that the judge negated much of the work done to create an understanding of what gender identity really is.
Of course one might say that those who question it, or don't understand it, are bigots. I do appreciate your post because it adds more perspective than just pointing out 'bigots' and it was clear and thoughtful.
A lot of things need to be fixed in health plans, the prime example being insurances not paying for birth control but paying for Viagra. It is still a 'man's' world in many respects, so every struggle for equality is an important one.
Thanks again for your post. You always provide a better understanding, without anger, without reaction. I admire that.
snip--
Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
--snip
I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity? I think many many men would also strongly disagree with you. Yet, in the other cases you describe, a harelip, a clubfoot, I don't think anyone would believe their anatomy is normal or common. How can you support the idea that a set of physical attributes found in about half the population constitutes a "physical defomity"?
*Agreed.
*But: my own views ('he' is not interchangeable with 'she') are already posted in this thread over and over, so I have no need to beat that drum again.
If it was really "needless", why bother bringing it up again?
I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity?
Oh no, V.
Have you been drunk texting photos again?
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK AT WORK
Puppetry of the Penis. Video of performance on Absolute Radio.
NB - I dislike Iain Lee, and the cackling woman is dreadful, but this was the best clip I could find.
(Note - not goatse, but if you don't want to look at two men manipulating their penises, again, do not click)
Take it on down the road, Big Verbose.
Me: (still) not interested.
did you just tell me to shut up?
I'm verbose, it's true, but I only use as many words as are needed, no more. I was confused by what you wrote and asked for clarification, thinking you would be the best person to explain your own words. You seemed to contradict yourself in that post, just as you do here; if you're not interested, if it is "needless", why did you bother to bring it up.
You may reply with whatever degree of verbosity you deem necessary.
I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity?
Let's take, then, the case of someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, who is XY but does not produce/react to androgens like Testosterone. They would not, then, have a penis, but would not develop secondary female sexual characteristics. Would this person's vagina be a deformity, or not, in your mind? it is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did.
Pam's point is that, in trans* people, the fact that their body did not develop the way it should have (or, if you want to reverse it, their brain/mind/identity did not develop the way the body did, or whatever) means that, while it would be normal for their bodies to have developed that way IF they were a man, they aren't (or vice-versa for trans* men), and so it's an abnormal development of the body.
Thanks for the reply Ibby. I'd like to start by saying I'm not hostile toward you, Pam, or any other trans* people. I also wish to state that I don't know many, though I have had a few casual interactions with a few, probably under a dozen. Lastly, I'm not familiar at all with androgen insensitivity syndrome beyond what you've described here.
So that's a good point to start with.
Let's take, then, the case of someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, who is XY but does not produce/react to androgens like Testosterone. They would not, then, have a penis, but would not develop secondary female sexual characteristics. Would this person's vagina be a deformity, or not, in your mind? it is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did.
From what I can glean from your description here "secondary female sexual characteristics" would mean enlarged breasts, minimal facial hair, relatively wider hips, perhaps some other less dramatically different physical characteristics. When you say "would not develop" some or all or more of the traits above and then ask me if that person's vagina would represent a "physical deformity", my answer is no. There are many people who have a vagina that do not have enlarged breasts, or the other secondary sexual characteristics (adults, of course, not children). Of those people, I would not consider the presence of a vagina in the absence of the other secondary characteristics a physical deformity.
Your last sentence "It is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did." is subjective and presumes a baseline of "normal" that appears to weigh the absence of secondary sexual characteristics more heavily than the presence of "primary" (my term) sexual characteristics, in this case a vagina. I'm not quarreling with *your* interpretation of such a situation, I'm just saying you seem to be emphasizing the secondary and minimizing the primary. That seems backwards.
Pam's point is that, in trans* people, the fact that their body did not develop the way it should have (or, if you want to reverse it, their brain/mind/identity did not develop the way the body did, or whatever) means that, while it would be normal for their bodies to have developed that way IF they were a man, they aren't (or vice-versa for trans* men), and so it's an abnormal development of the body.
This point depends entirely on what your definition of "should* is. "My body developed the way it should have." "My body did not develop the way it should have." What is the frame of reference for what "should be" is? I don't have an answer.
Your thought experiment to reverse it is interesting, and when it's reversed, to my mind, it puts the "should be" reference point in the body, and the brain/mind/identity as the aspect of the person that "did not develop as it should have". It is a small step from there to make the conclusion that the judge did in the story discussed earlier to view such a situation as a "mental illness" or "mental deformity" if you'll permit me to meld your term with the judge's.
The term "physical deformity" isn't subject to a person's brain/mind/identity. If you look at two pictures of a child's mouth and one of them shows a cleft palette it is clear which is the physical deformity. If you looked at a thousand or a million such pictures, there would be no question as to which were physically deformed and which were normal. (Yes, there might be some cases that were.... somewhere in between, oooh... is that just a really high cupid's bow or is it actually cleft. sure. But that is not the suggestion Pam, nor you are making "My penis is vanishingly small and that deformity defines my trans*-ness.) Now imagine looking at two pictures of two different penises. How can you tell which is a "physical deformity"? How can you determine from those two pictures which one belongs to the trans* person? I don't think you can, I'm sure I can't.
Such a statement is an improper use of the term "physical deformity". That's my point.
I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity? I think many many men would also strongly disagree with you. Yet, in the other cases you describe, a harelip, a clubfoot, I don't think anyone would believe their anatomy is normal or common. How can you support the idea that a set of physical attributes found in about half the population constitutes a "physical defomity"?
No V.. You misunderstand. I said MY penis, as well as other attributes not common to my gender, are a deformity. Somewhere in my link collection I have a chart that shows how I was supposed to have developed but for a poorly-timed shot of testosterone during my development. My (not your) penis is supposed to be my vagina, my testes are supposed to be my ovaries etc.
I was speaking only for transsexual women. YOU were born male and you got the standard-issue male brain to go with the package. I did not. That's the difference. What is a deformity to ME is perfectly normal to YOU.
Love
Pam
Do the stereotypes associated with men and women (i.e. women are from Venus, men are from Mars) hold with trans* men and trans* women; or, does the mind-body incongruity period irreparably obscure them?
The 'man is from Mars, women are from Venus' thing has pretty much been discredited for straight people, let alone transgender.
In academia, perhaps. In the real world, women may still make less money for doing the same jobs as men and encounter the glass ceiling as a result of that perception. That's in first world countries, in the second world they can be much worse off. These circumstances can affect their development differently. Do those who are transgendered, after their formative years, ever realize the same outlook?
Ah, I see. I'd misunderstood your post :P
Perhaps I could do better with an analogy. When people beyond their formative years study a foreign language, at first they translate everything (their own thoughts and what others are saying) in their heads. Eventually, they can become accustomed enough to "think" in the foreign language and not have to translate in their heads anymore. Some people have a greater; or, lesser aptitude than others to learn another language which can be measured with a battery of tests.
Can people learn to think entirely like their mental gender for their culture after being raised/indoctrinated in their physical gender; or, is that not possible unlike learning to think in another language? If they can, can their aptitude be measured?
I would think maybe that is why they want the physical change...because they already 'think' in that gender's language. Their struggle is in fighting the indocrination.
Last night I dreamt in Chinese.
Eating Yankee shredded wheat
I would think maybe that is why they want the physical change...because they already 'think' in that gender's language. Their struggle is in fighting the indocrination.
That's true in part; however, part of them has already been indoctrinated, during their formative years, into thinking like their physical gender and that's the part I'm referring to.
Maybe I'm being a bit slow, but what sort of things are you referring to them thinking in terms of "male" or "female" mindsets? I understand what you're saying in an abstract sort of way... men and women are raised/treated differently, I'm just not really understanding how you'd know you were thinking in a completely "female" capacity after being raised as a male?
So.. basically... how would you know that your outlook/mental whatever was entirely transformed into the "female" mindset or not? (or vice versa...)
Sort of like if you saw a completely different set of colors than everyone, but you were raised in the same kindgergarten. Purple would be purple to you, even if your eyes saw orange instead. The color would be different but you wouldn't be able to tell, having never seen through someone else's eyeballs.
... So.. basically... how would you know that your outlook/mental whatever was entirely transformed into the "female" mindset or not? (or vice versa...)
... The color would be different but you wouldn't be able to tell, having never seen through someone else's eyeballs.
Others would be able to tell. To continue my analogy, some people can learn another language and its culture well enough to pass as a native while others cannot. Are transgendered peoples' ability to ever pass through society without that being noticed obscured?
Ok Thanks for the clarification on your question.
Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less. My objection is the taxpayers getting stuck with the bill.
I think the point made in that article though, is that prisoners with other medical or pyschological needs are assisted. At taxpayers expense. So why distinguish between them and this guy, unless one is making a judgement as to which condition/problem is recognisable to us and which is frivolous.
There is a broad tendency within society to see something like this as frivolous or unnecessary.
Last night I dreamt in Chinese.
Eating Yankee shredded wheat
Stop snacking on spicy foods right before bed. That'll stop the weird dreams! :D
An article in the
Boston Globe that I think sums up the Nay votes pretty well.
Well put and reasoned without a lot of hating. For once. Most of what I have read on this so far is a lot of hate and misinformation.
And this
article, while not openly supporting the judge's decision, is more in the Yea camp.
I think the point made in that article though, is that prisoners with other medical or pyschological needs are assisted. At taxpayers expense. So why distinguish between them and this guy, unless one is making a judgement as to which condition/problem is recognisable to us and which is frivolous.
I'm not against "needs" being addressed, but I'll bet presented with the treatment given all prisoners, I'd probably take the same position on many of them. Don't forget this is job security for the docs and shrinks that work for the prison system.
There is a broad tendency within society to see something like this as frivolous or unnecessary.
Yes, with good reason.
Pam said:
GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
OK, so take a guy that is born with one leg two inches shorter than the other. That's going to cause a serious hitch in his git-along, and sure to twist his head from childhood teasing to stares and whispers as an adult. He could get it corrected but doesn't, most likely from lack of funds. Now he murders his wife and gets sent to prison, suddenly the taxpayer is on the hook for the procedure? NO, if it's not necessary before he goes to prison, it's not necessary while he's in. It's not an emergency like an appendicitis, that makes it elective as far as I'm concerned.
See, capital punishment would have solved this problem.
...with this -- "Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less." -- some one is liable to call you 'cunt' or 'bully'... ;)
##
"did you just tell me to shut up?"
Pretty much, yeah.
Nobody is going to call Bruce a bully, because he isn't one.
I agree....irrelevant...kinda misses the point of my post.
*shrug*
Yep. Somewhat deliberately.
Simply using the words you point out doesn't attract the label 'bully'.
Still missing the point of my post (and: no, I won't be explaining it).
He says, missing the point of my post.
Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).
'nuff said.
@bruce: So, actually, for you it's the broader picture, rather than specifically this procedure that you object to?
That's a whole other argument I think. Whether much of what is done for prisoners is necessary and warrants taxpayer money. It's the separating off of this procedure as different from much of what is currently covered by taxpayers that I object to more, I think.
Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).
'nuff said.
There are many people in the world, no doubt, who give a fuck what you do or do not acknowledge, Henry. I am not one of them.
HA!
Mimicry suits you... ;)
Me, sir? A mimic, sir?
How dare you!
How very dare you!
(@ Sundae: *grins*)
Genders are not interchangeable. You are what you are between your ears.
I do not go back and forth, as the situation demands. I am a female. Period. That I was born with male parts is fixable now. And when it's all said and done, I will be a woman. With female parts. Period. I don't get to say I'm a man now because the mechanic is lying to me again. Or I really want that job but they don't hire women for it. Or because it's Tuesday.
Transsexuals generally do not go in for anything other than the binary gender paradigm. (I've always wanted to use that word!) We only want to fit in to the existing norm. It's the others on the TG spectrum that want to play games with gender. Live and let live, I say.
I do not agree with discriminating against anyone on the basis of their appearance, even if it makes you uncomfortable. *I* happen to dislike bigots. But do I go around saying they should not be permitted to breed? Or should be rounded up and exiled? Or shot? No. Yet this is what transsexuals live with daily.
Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.
The judge ruled properly, yet I still wish it had been someone other than a prisoner, because the resulting news coverage may hurt us as much as help us.
I truly hope that this decision stands, not for the benefit of prisoners, but because it can have ripple effects for us all.
More and more health plans are covering Hormone Replacement Therapy, counseling and even surgery for transsexuals. One day soon, Medicare will cover it too, I hope. That, I believe, will sway a majority of health plans.
No V.. You misunderstand. I said MY penis, as well as other attributes not common to my gender, are a deformity. Somewhere in my link collection I have a chart that shows how I was supposed to have developed but for a poorly-timed shot of testosterone during my development. My (not your) penis is supposed to be my vagina, my testes are supposed to be my ovaries etc.
I was speaking only for transsexual women. YOU were born male and you got the standard-issue male brain to go with the package. I did not. That's the difference. What is a deformity to ME is perfectly normal to YOU.
Love
Pam
I'm sure I do misunderstand, that's why I asked for clarification. I'd like to clarify one of your points first Pam. You did not say "MY penis" as is clear in your post above. Your quote clearly shows you were talking about the the prisoner, and by extension the prisoner's deformity.
I accept your description of your body as your opinion, fine. I struggle to follow through on your word choice, but that's on me. Your penis is deformed? Is it a badly formed vagina? Because it sure looks like a normally formed penis. I haven't seen your genitals Pam, we both know this, I'm using my imagination.
When you talk about the prisoner's penis, you're not talking about your feelings about your own body, but about some third person, someone like me even. If you can suggest that the penis of the prisoner is
a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight.
you could just as easily be talking about a different third person, someone like me even. And that description is wrong. It's an abuse of the language. That's why I spoke up.
...with this -- "Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less." -- some one is liable to call you 'cunt' or 'bully'... ;)
##
"did you just tell me to shut up?"
Pretty much, yeah.
It didn't work.
Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).
'nuff said.
There are many people in the world, no doubt, who give a fuck what you do or do not acknowledge, Henry. I am not one of them.
hq reminds me of tw when he's not in his manic phase. he still knows everything, he just doesn't deign to acknowledge it.
i am not sure whats going on, but regarding the OP:
the question is contextual and depends on which aspects are relevant.
for example, if the matter in question is a medical question, i would most likely relate to them as a male who has had major surgery and hormonal treatments, because both facts can be quite relevant.
likewise, if i would be looking for a women to start a family with, a tranny wouldn't be able to provide that. if its a matter of sexual attraction, and the tranny looks too masculine for my taste to me despite alternations (as is often the case), then she isn't of my sexual liking, just as most physically masculine women would be regardless of how they are born. if this isn't the case, and for my sensual experience it feels and looks like i am with a woman, where the fact she was born with male organs merely being a little fact at the back of my head, i doubt it would influence me much, though i would be curious as to how well do the altered genitalia function as far as sexual pleasure and orgasms. i haven't yet being in that situation though.
however if i am talking to her as a friend or a potential friend, then it makes the most sense to me to respect her sense of identity. likewise, if i am looking for some female advice, and she has gained enough experience within a feminine sociological reality, i am likely to treat her as a female.
that's being said, i do not feel i should have my questions and questioning bound by the laws of PC mannerism, and i'm unlikely to consider her a potentially good friend if they get pissed over it. your different, you made the choice to inform me about it, it incites curiousity, and possibilities that you might not feel comfortable with are going to be explored given that information, if you expect me to walk on egg shells for you after doing that, i consider yo a dick no matter what's between your pants.
now, who are we talking about?
Hi Trace!!!!! *hugs*
Where ya been ?
It was worth a shot...*shrug*
Nice to see you again traceur. How are you? I'll go check for posts from you to find out any new news. :waves:
traceur,
My opening post for this thread refers to Ibby.
My position (opposed, it seems, by every one):
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=817432&postcount=164
Much later in the thread: I posted a news bit about a prisoner awarded a sex change by the court.
That should clear up the confusion.
V, I admit I could have phrased my response better. Pronouns give me trouble. *I* know what I mean! The problem is in my way of trying to communicate to YOU what I mean. This is why I turned down the spokestranny position that I was offered a little while ago.
Trace, welcome back!
Point of procedure? Please do not call us "trannies". We consider the term insulting and demeaning, almost on a par with ""he-she" and "shemale". *I* have a thick skin on this point but if any of my sisters are reading and lurking, they may not. The proper PC term is "transwoman", "transman" or "transperson". I am fully aware that I use the term. I personally do not see the harm in a simple word. However, I do take into account the thought and meaning attached to the word. Sometimes, I think our community is TOO sensitive on certain things and is definitely disorganized on all fronts.
Thank you! :)
Love
Pam
Thanks again Pam for the extended clarification, I appreciate it. I'm happy to let it stand at this: "my feelings, put into words, about myself". I totally respect that.
---
regarding the terminology, can you provide some more clarification for me please? I am ignorant, but I don't wish to offend, even unintentionally. My question is this. Taking you as an example, (with your thick skin and all, whew), are you a transman, or a transwoman? I am uncertain about the usage of the "_ _ _ _ _ m a n" or "_ _ _ _ _ w o m a n" in two cases. Am I to consider the current .... ???? state/appearance of the person I'm speaking to/of? or am I to consider what their genitalia indicated when they were born? Or am I to consider the gender they're striving to conform to?... augh... I think I'm over thinking it but I would like to know more. It would be nice to "get it right". Will you please help?
@bruce: So, actually, for you it's the broader picture, rather than specifically this procedure that you object to?
That's a whole other argument I think. Whether much of what is done for prisoners is necessary and warrants taxpayer money. It's the separating off of this procedure as different from much of what is currently covered by taxpayers that I object to more, I think.
Goddamnit, I left a whole long reply last night but it's not here. Probably previewed and didn't post, or some stupid shit.
Anyway, basically yes. Prisoners get treated better than vets, and I question what's necessary vs what's job security for the docs and shrinks. They have a basically free hand to tinker to their hearts and wallets delight.
Thanks again Pam for the extended clarification, I appreciate it. I'm happy to let it stand at this: "my feelings, put into words, about myself". I totally respect that.
---
regarding the terminology, can you provide some more clarification for me please? I am ignorant, but I don't wish to offend, even unintentionally. My question is this. Taking you as an example, (with your thick skin and all, whew), are you a transman, or a transwoman? I am uncertain about the usage of the "_ _ _ _ _ m a n" or "_ _ _ _ _ w o m a n" in two cases. Am I to consider the current .... ???? state/appearance of the person I'm speaking to/of? or am I to consider what their genitalia indicated when they were born? Or am I to consider the gender they're striving to conform to?... augh... I think I'm over thinking it but I would like to know more. It would be nice to "get it right". Will you please help?
Thank you V. I will be glad to help you out regarding gender/pronouns/terminology. I am mostly speaking for myself, but what I recommend applies to pretty much all of us except the really militant ones. :)
Please use the gender/pronouns of the gender that we are presenting to you at the time. Even if we are not "fooling" anyone. Yes, some of us go back and forth. Those would be the ones that are not yet "out" to certain people. They may be protecting themselves, their job, or friends/family. Please respect that. If you are in doubt, please ask us in private. Most will tell you and thank you for your consideration.
The proper term (for me) is transsexual woman, or just woman/female/she/her. Never "it". In my case, you are unlikely to ever see me in male mode ever again. But there are those who are still coming out. If they have told you, but not someone else, take it as a compliment and a vote of confidence.
Transwoman is also acceptable. Once I am through the transition process (I will share this with everyone here), the proper term is female, woman, she/her etc. No trans.
Transsexuality is considered a medical condition and, in most cases, curable with medication and corrective surgery. Once "cured", the dysphoria disappears for the vast majority of us. And our outward presentation is in harmony with our internal identity.
That's really helpful Pam, thank you very much.
Perhaps now might be a good time to address the topic of how to talk to a transsexual. I speak mostly for the MtF crowd here. But many comments apply to transmen as well. Just think of us as regular people. We are not some exotic creature in a zoo, we are not going to bite your head off or jump your bones right there.
But, while I generally welcome questions if they are asked from a genuine desire to learn and understand me, there are some that are insulting.
Ms. Calpernia Addams addresses some of these in the following video. While it is done from her unique brand of wit and is funny, there is a kernel of truth hidden inside as well. I have been asked most of these questions already and, while I handle them with good grace (usually), deep inside, this is often what I am thinking.
[YOUTUBE]DjqsB1huDxg[/YOUTUBE]
Now that that is out of the way, I hereby authorise everyone to ask me, as a representative of the greater transsexual community, most any question. Please be respectful and I will return the favor.
Love
Pamela
...we are not going to [COLOR="Silver"]bite your head off or [/COLOR]jump your bones right there.
Love
Pamela
Well that's disappointing. :haha:
Very helpful, very entertaining. I thought about saying "hysterical"... I reconsidered. (but then I just said it, so, dumbass=me).
Seriously Pam, that was great. I think hq should consider question #7. For myself, I actually have had a version of question #9 in my head "Are you a man or a woman?", though I phrased it differently "How should I refer to you?". In fact, it's kind of what this whole thread's about.
Anyhow, I found the video useful and funny. She's got that eye roll *down*, I would not want it used against me. :) Thanks again.
"question #7"
I'd be glad to consider it...unfortunately the machine I'm on has no sound, so -- if the question is part of the video -- I can't access it.
Just post it and I'll consider it.
#
"we are not going to bite your head off or jump your bones right there"
Of course not...don’t think any one in this thread suggested anything like that.
#
"I hereby authorise everyone to ask me, as a representative of the greater transsexual community, most any question."
Okeedoke.
Ibby, in-forum, has mentioned his 'feminine side' and/or 'feeling female' (I paraphrase).
Is this the same for you, and -- if so -- can you describe concretely what this means?
bad question number 7:
Anything about my genitals.
in the video at about 7:12.
Her reply:
Again, you perverted, disgusting freak. Don't ask me anything about my genitals, unless I offer. You wouldn't ask a co-worker, a friend, or probably even a family member probing, intimate questions about their genitals unless you had a pre-existing relationship that was kind of on that level. You know, this is often a favorite question from men, gay or straight, and usually their questions involve the words 'cut' and 'off'. My brain usually Turns Off when I hear this question, 'cause it's gross and weird and morbid.
Just because I know that most of you are dumb f***s, I'll educate you a little bit on what happens during vaginoplasty. That's known as sex change surgery to you dummies. In vaginoplasty, doctors don't cut off genitals, they refashion existing tissues and nerves, sort of going from out to in, to make a fully functioning, beautiful, sensate vulva and vagina.
So, um, that's about all you need to know, really. If you're desperate for more information, you can go to www.tsroadmap.com to get the full 411 on what goes on in our pants. And that little thing we call a life that surrounds genitals.
As a side note, womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis. I hear a lot of dummies, college jocks, frat boys, construction worker types making jokes about oh, if someone's penis gets cut off then they're a girl. Well, Surprise! Women are more than the lack of a penis. Women have their own genitals. They're internal, true and most of you men out there have probably never seen them. Or at least not very much outside the family. But, women have their own genitalia that have nothing to do with having or not having a penis. And, to be honest, I have known a lot of transwomen, both pre op and post op, who I would definitely consider women no matter what their genital or surgical status. Basically, just stay out of their pants, unless you're dating.
So, to summarize, no, you can't see it. And, no I don't want to answer any more questions about it, at least not in the first twenty minutes of our acquaintance. Unless you buy me a steak dinner first. And no, Sizzler doesn't count.
[YOUTUBE]DjqsB1huDxg&start=432[/YOUTUBE]
Why should I consider this question?
Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?
The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.
#
"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"
Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.
How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).
Why should I consider this question?
Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?
The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.
#
"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"
Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.
How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).
Really?
I agree about it being irrelevant*, but you certainly posted about it in this thread, you opened the thread with the very idea at the center of your post.
*Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.
V, note that HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he".
I missed that.
:banghead:
It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.
It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.
:D
V,
There's a context to my (and every one else's) posts.
If you dis-embed one post, one line, from the others then you can make it seem that I mean 'this' instead of 'that'.
Yes, I "*certainly posted about it in this thread", but within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness.
As I say in post 164...
'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).'
#
"Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours"
Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself.
##
Sun,
"HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"."
Because he's a guy.
##
Dana,
"...a turd when it's floating in a sewer"
Of all the folks disagreeing with me, you, Dana are the most puzzling.
(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.
I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.
(2) As liberal or progressive or whatever, I thought you'd appreciate 'tolerance'.
I make no threats and levy no insults against Ibby or any other transgendered person. I tell him (over and over) he SHOULD DO EXACTLY AS HE LIKES WITH HIS FLESH and this isn't enough for you. As I will not submit to the current 'correct' view, my tolerance (indifference, really) is dismissed and I'm called 'bully' and 'cunt'.
Fundamentally: Ibby wants to be called 'she' when in fact he is 'he' and I'm the bad guy because I won't walk the proscribed line dictated by Ibby and his supporters.
*shrug*
*and, if that had been my only post in this thread, you might have a platform to call me out, but it wasn't my only post.
I think, if someone feels insulted by a certain label, the refusal to use whatever terminogy they've expressed they would prefer is obdurate and flat out rude.
Sort of like referring to a female as "woman" to her face. Ie: "When is dinner going to be ready, woman?". Maybe she'd prefer to be called domestic goddess or supreme commander of the kitchen, or even Susan. While "woman" is technically accurate, if she finds it insulting to be generalized and minimized, considerate individuals will call her whatever name she prefers, instead.
It's pretty much a sideways "fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want".
V,
(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.
I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.
Well, as a historian, 'facts' are very much a starting point. The real work lies in interpretation. And 'facts' as they are presented can be tricky beasts indeed, particularly when we are dealing with individual experience and identity.
I can see how my responding with 'feelings' might confuse you. But, my particular fields of interest/expertise, are very much concerned with experience and identity.
I have two main areas of interest which crossover with each other at various points. The first, and central to my research is the soldier experience during the long eighteenth century, and particularly during the Napoleonic era. How they identified themselves and were identified by others is a fairly fundamental part of that.
The second area of interest and the area I usually teach, is gender in the same period. How was it constructed, applied, accepted, performed, or rejected? How and why did gender constructions change? How was gender used culturally? for example the masculinity of British national identity, versus the femininity which the British ascribed to their 'natural and necessary enemy' the French; the gendering of the 'other' in the context of imperialism and exploration, the use of gender to codify and understand alternate cultures (the taxonomic studies of the female form in different races - with each racial type ranked according to the size, shape, pertness of the breasts, and the degree to which each culture conformed to 'proper' gender roles (e.g the separate spheres of male and female lives); scientific understandings of gender and the medicalisation of the female within that
The ways in which masculinity was constructed and applied, and how that changed. The ways in which femininity was constructed and applied and how that changed. The way individuals experienced and performed gender, and how they self-identified (did the middling orders of 18th century Britain conform, for example, to the 'separate spheres' model which permeates popular culture, advice books, scientific and philosophical tracts? ). The ways in which gender constructions loosened and tightened according to the needs and insecurities of the time. How new ways of approaching the natural world (including humans) altered the ways in which men and women thought of themselves and each other.
I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry.
henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.
Ibby, in-forum, has mentioned his 'feminine side' and/or 'feeling female' (I paraphrase).
Is this the same for you, and -- if so -- can you describe concretely what this means?
That's kind of hard to answer, as I am not sure how a man feels. I know how I was told that I should feel by the men in my life and that was at odds with what I did feel.
I cannot really speak for Ibby. She will have to answer for herself. But I will venture to say that Ibby is not a transsexual. She is further to the male side of the gender spectrum than I am. She is exploring her identity and looking for her place in the world. That's fine. I know where I belong.
My feelings are those of a female, judging by what women and therapists (I've had several over the years) tell me. I do know that I do not and never have fit in with men. I just don't have a lot in common with them. Even as a child, I stayed closer to my mother than my father. I preferred being in the kitchen cooking to watching football with the men. Wine to beer. Talking to playing. In short, I displayed feminine traits from an early age.
When I discovered that clothes can change the way I feel, oh BOY! I went to town. But in private while I explored this new avenue. I quickly learned to be ashamed and to feel guilt. This is something that I continue to struggle to overcome. What I finally realized, is that women's clothing felt
natural to me and men's clothing felt
unnatural. This holds true today and forever.
I hope that answered your question.
Pam
Slight side step, because my head's in the eighteenth-century today :P
I've taken this from wikipedia, because I havent the heart to go searching through texts:
In 18th century England, a "molly" referred to an effeminate usually homosexual male.[1][2] Mollies, and other third sex identities, were one precursor to the broader 'homosexual' identity of the 20th and 21st centuries.[3]
The most famous molly house was Mother Clap's open for two years from 1724-1726 in the Holborn area of London.
Patrons of Molly houses who dressed in women's clothing were called "Mollies", they would take on a female persona, have a female name, and affect feminine mannerisms and speech. Marriage ceremonies between a Mollie and his male lover were enacted to symbolise their partnership and commitment, and the role-play at times incorporated a ritualised giving birth.[4]
At the time, under the Buggery Act 1533, buggery was a capital offence in England, and court records of buggery trials of the period provide much of the evidence about molly houses.[5]
On 9 May 1726, three men (Gabriel Lawrence, William Griffin, and Thomas Wright) were hanged at Tyburn for buggery following a raid of Margaret Clap's molly house. Charles Hitchen, the Under City Marshal (and crime lord), was also convicted (in 1727) of attempted buggery at a Molly house
Two things strike me about this. One, is that gender performance has always been problematic for those whose sense of self did not conform strictly to the culturally constructed norms of the day. And second is that, whilst right now what is at stake is at worst violent assault and at best the experience (hopefully temporary) of shame described by Pam, the stakes have been much higher at other times and yet...those people still engaged in gender performance which put them at risk of utter ruination or capital sentence.
It has taken a very, very long time, for our culture(s) to accept something which it has always had within it. I hope, one day, discussions like this one will seem as odd to contemporaries as discussions on women's wandering wombs, and the genetic inferiority of the black man do to us now. Both of which, incidentally, had scientific 'facts' to give them weight.
"fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want".
Certainly, that's one possible interpretation.
Just not the only one.
I'm sure when Norton demanded to be called 'emperor', some refused for the reason you cite above. Others, I'm sure, refused to call Norton 'emperor' because, in fact, he was not an emperor.
#
"I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry."
And we don't have to.
Since this is the closest I'm gonna get to a 'let's agree to disagree', I'll just say: thanks, Dana.
#
"He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk."
That's one interpretation. Another is, it irks me when folks demand I toss away what's real in favor of not-real.
#
"I hope that answered your question."
You did. Thank you for the civility. Your post raises other questions for me, but I'll save those for a later time.
I cannot really speak for Ibby. She will have to answer for herself. But I will venture to say that Ibby is not a transsexual. She is further to the male side of the gender spectrum than I am. She is exploring her identity and looking for her place in the world. That's fine. I know where I belong.
I take exception to that... i sure as hell know where I belong too. I'm a bit of a tomboy, but that doesn't mean i'm not trans*.
Good morning hq.
"Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours"
Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself.
Do you have a cite for this assertion? I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything. This seems to be your main complaint, the keystone of this thread you started. Where did this happen? I am trying to see things from your perspective. You don't like to be told what to do, especially when it is in direct conflict with your thoughts on the matter. That's completely understandable.
BUT, there are parts where I have trouble extending this line of thought, the first being no memory or knowledge of such a demand. If you can, would you please show me where this demand is being made?
Secondly, the whole idea of what pronoun to use is not something that is always unambiguously definite. We use pronouns with some latitude all the time. I refer to you as "he", but that's just a convention. I don't know you, I don't know about your genitals, your state of mind, your attitudes, your chromosomes, none of that. In fact, what I can say about you with confidence is that I type posts in response to posts associated with your username. Those posts have no gender. But I use that pronoun nonetheless.
What is right and fair to be referred to as "he" is widely variable, and so is what is right and fair to be considered "male". I get being hung up on language--I do. I couldn't let Pam's remarks about a penis being a physical deformity go unchallenged. Just language, right? But I had to respond. And I did, and so did she, it got worked out. I see your tilting at this windmill in this light. We, humans, use language to work stuff out. Your inability/refusal to capitulate to Ibby's demands is clearly justified, to you. To me, and to others who have commented here, it is not justified, it is simply a rejection of broadly accepted conventions of cellar etiquette, social norms, and casual usage of language among regular people. You're just saying "no".
That's fine, fine, really. But it's not "right". You might be able to say with a great deal of certainty something about Ibby's chromosomes, you might be able to confidently aver to a physical description of his genitals. Those kinds of things are amenable to objective measurement. Being male is not as objectively, atomically measurable. And the usage of a given pronoun is even less so. You can choose to use whatever words you like, but the logic of your argument--Ibby has xy chromosomes therefore has a penis therefore is male therefore requires the use of the pronoun "he"--breaks down under scrutiny in our immediate frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what your logic looks like from here.
****
within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness.
As I say in post 164...
'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).'
I don't agree. xy imparts certain characteristics to the flesh, like a penis. But that's not all that makes me male, and importantly, there is MUCH about me, much of what I do that manifests my maleness that has nothing to do with my penis. It's a part (a big part, ha ha) of my maleness, but not the majority.
Think about the experiences you have throughout the day, using a very helpful linguistic handle like a pronoun that is masculine or feminine, but without actually knowing about genitals. The cues used to reach that grammatical conclusion are the kinds of things I'm talking about that justify "he" or "she". I use those, and so do you, without actually knowing what's in their pants. It is the running total of these inputs that is the "source of maleness, the source of femaleness". A penis or a vagina, the direct physical result of one's chromosomes, contributes to this running total, and in most folks, it is a reinforcing contribution. But not always. You have certainly had the experience, or at least can imagine dealing with someone you assessed to be male only to find out later that that person didn't have a penis. In that case, her genitals aren't adding to that running total. I reckon in Pam's case, or Ibby's case, or Calpernia's case, their genitals are a factor that detract from that running total; their sum total is female *despite* their genitals, not because of them. Genitalia is a factor in gender, not a conclusion. I believe you are confusing causation and correlation.
tl;dr
hq=penis is male, V=no it is not.
****
Sun,
"HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"."
Because he's a guy.
Given your standards for determining what gender pronoun to use (chromosomes, genitalia), how can you support this statement?
henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.
scf,
please!
you *know* I drink a lot in the morning :eyebrow:
a rejection of broadly accepted conventions of cellar etiquette
this should be permitted at all times imo
Permitted yes. Unchallenged? *shrugs*
a rejection of broadly accepted conventions of cellar etiquette
this should be permitted at all times imo
Are you suggesting anarchy? Chaos?
"I demand you delete that post, as I find it intolerably irritating."
***
Now, I wonder what will happen with this paradox I've set. A broadly accepted convention of cellar etiquette is that posts are not deleted. It is not universally so, many posts are deleted but they are almost always related to spam. Yet, if you "permit" my demand, the post will go away, my rejection of the convention will have triumphed. Your desire will also be granted.
We shall see.
"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."
He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'.
#
Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position.
If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do.
#
'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome.
You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position.
Stop it.
In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real.
#
"how can you support this statement?"
It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics).
Are you suggesting anarchy? Chaos?
For fux sake. No, I'm saying that you don't get to claim that your idea of what "conventions of cellar etiquette" are, means anything at all.
Always THINK
Never GROUP-THINK
Did we already talk about how many legs a sheep would have if you call its tail a leg?
Here's what the folks over at snopes have to say
I think, though, that the larger quote from Stearns's work helps reinforce the use of the anecdote with respect to the issue of slavery, which is how Lincoln is said to have used it a decade later,
quote:
The law treats [man, or a slave] as a person and as a thing, classing him under both categories; but were he not a thing, were there no exchangeable value in him, the law might call him one day, all day, it would not make him one. "Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal progenitor, "if I should call this cow's leg a tail, how many legs would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would calling it a leg make it one?"
In fact, the anecdote had been in use in the abolitionist movement itself at least as early as 1840,
quote:
(From "Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. Sketches of Debates at the Annual Meeting," The Liberator, 28 February 1840.)
[On 'The Church and the Ministry,' Thursday evening, Jan. 23.]
[Mr. Bradburn] This discussion reminds me of the boy who said to his father, "Father, how many legs would this calf have, calling the tail a leg? 'Why five, my son.' 'No, father, he can not. He would have only four.' 'Why, calling the tail a leg, you said, my boy.' 'Ah father! but calling the tail a leg, does not make it so, you know.' So also I would say to that gentlemen. You may call him an abolitionist any length of time you choose. It will not make him one.
It's hard to know, I think, whether Lincoln himself ever actually made use of the anecdote, but he certainly gets linked to it by sometime in October, 1862, after issuance of the first part of the Emancipation Proclamation,
quote:
(Appearing in Dawsons Daily Times and Union [Fort Wayne, Indiana], 21 October 1862. Reprinted from the Albany [New York] Argus and Atlas.]
WHERE ARE THE ARMED ME? -- Greeley, Andrew, Blair of Michigan, and other Abolitionists, promised the President a million men, if he would issue his Emancipation Proclamation. In vain did Lincoln protest; in vain did he cite the stories of the Pope, who issued a bull against the comet, and the slave who told his mater that his calling a pig's tail a leg, would not make it so. He was assured that if he would but spread his edict before the people, armed men would spring out the earth at the stamp of his foot.
(From The Weekly Standard [Raleigh, North Carolina], 29 October 1862.)
OLD ABE GETS OFF ANOTHER JOKE. -- A couple of Abolitionists having called upon Old Abe to persuade him to issue his Emancipation Proclamation -- that is, before he issued it -- he got off the following good thing and knock down argument against his own act:
"You remember the slave who asked his master -- if I should call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs would it have? 'Five.' 'No, only four, for my calling the tail a leg would not make it so.' Now, gentlemen, if I say to the slaves, 'you are free,' they will be no more free than at present."
(From "Irenaeus," "Letters from the City," The New York Observer and Chronicle, 22 January 1863.)
THE PRESIDENT AND DR. CHEEVER.
Just before the first of January, Dr. Cheever was appointed by a ministers' meeting, at which a lawyer presided and a newspaper reporter was secretary, to go to Washington and help stiffen the backbone of the President in the matter of the Proclamation. At the interview, as it is described by Dr. Cheever to his friends, the President was as usual in excellent humor . . . As the conference [with the President] continued, the President expressed his fear that the Proclamation would not amount to much of anything, and the doctor predicted great things from it. Mr. Lincoln said it reminded him of a farmer out in Illinois who asked his little boy a question in figures. "If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs will you have?" "Five," said the boy. "No, it won't, you fool," said the farmer, "calling a thing so, don't make it so!"
The President seemed to feel that calling a man free and making him so were not exactly the same thing.
[...]
In any event, other early appearances of this anecdote (at least in the American press) go something like this,
quote:
(From the New-Hampshire Gazette [Portsmouth], 1 July 1834.)
'If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs will a sheep have?' -- 'Five.'
'Will calling a sheep's tail a leg make it a leg?' 'No.'
If then calling a sheep's tail a leg don't make it a leg, will calling a Tory a Whig make him a Whig. -- Cayuga [Patriot].
(From The Cincinnati Weekly Herald and Philanthropist, 27 December 1843.)
Says Bill to Jack, how many legs would a calf have by calling a tail one? 'Five,' answered Jack. 'No, 'twouldn't,' says Bill, 'because calling the tail one leg wouldn’t make it so, would it?'
(From The Watertown [Wisconsin] Chronicle, 30 October 1850.]
A little boy, some four or five years of age, once asked his father how many legs a calf would have, provided they called the tail one. The father, reasoning upon principles usually considered sound in those days, very naturally replied, "why, five, my son." "No," said the boy; "calling the tail a leg does not make it one."
Total fail.
"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."
He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'.
To paraphrase: "Cite or it didn't happen." Don't go all tw on us and shift the responsibility away from
you to support
your statement.
Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position.
If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do.
You introduce the word 'cock', not me. You, yourself, open this very thread with "penis". Remember this?
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Not the crux of your position? It is the ONLY factor in post after post after post from you. Chromosomes --> physical characteristics --> gendered pronoun. You say fixation, I say focus, focus on your own words.
'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome.
No. "He" is just a pronoun that is used in many ways, all over the place. In this case, a specific chromosome "imparts certain physical characteristics", not the meaning of words.
You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position.
Stop it.
In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real.
Your definition of the foundation of 'he' and 'she' is unrealistically strict and narrow. It is incomplete and unrealistic. Given the completely rigid understanding of gender and pronouns you demonstrate, I was going to say you lack imagination. But that would be wrong. If you truly believe what you're writing, you have no lack of imagination, you simply lack reality.
"how can you support this statement?"
It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics).
Here you contradict your own argument. You're all "It's the chromosomes, stupid" but here you are just going on someone's statement. How is that verifiably "real" and not "not-real"? It's ok to assume, but your justification for that assumption is some distance from what you proclaim is the gold standard of evidence. You rely on some of the same cues, some of the same shifty cultural notions we all do, but draw a different conclusion, weighting chromosomes at 100%, and nothing else matters. There is no dictionary in the world that defines "he" as "having xy chromosomes".
"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"
Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.
Not to put too fine a point on it, no it's not. The X chromosome only defines the female physical structure in a species. A molly (female cat) isn't a woman but it is a female. She has a body that can have babies and hormones that trigger estrus (her period) and she's slutty when there's toms around, etc. But she's not a woman (universally defined as a human) nor is this 'womanhood'. All of that behavior is largely based on hormones and what these hormones are instructing the body to do and where we humans differ from that is through the ability to recognize what we're doing and suppress/divert that behavior (in some cases) to somehow influence a social interaction. Manners and religious tenets are some methods of altering that behavior and neither of those have anything to do directly with which chromosome you won.
Womanhood, as it's generally defined, is comprised of societal expectations, pretty much everything that is expected of, allowed, given to or taken from a woman because the body that human has dangly bits on the chest and not between the legs. There are manners/mannerisms for women that men don't exhibit (and the other way around), there are expectations for women that men aren't expected to do, etc.
During embryo formation, there's a ton of things that can go awry and one of them is the formation of a human chimera. This can happen when a zygote or even an embryo absorbs a second (or more) embryos. This is how we get people with two different blood types in their body or two completely different types of hairs on their head (ie a blend of fine Norwegian blond and thick Mediterranean brown). If something as invisible to the eye as a blood type can be blended that way, I don't see why all or part of an XX zygote's endocrine system couldn't be absorbed by an XY zygote. If this XY comes to full term and gets born, you'll have a male human baby that will eventually be getting the hormone cocktail that a female human should have and less or none of what a male should have.
All that would be well and good in terms of survival, with the possibility that it'd be less likely for him to mate because he wouldn't give off the visual and hormonal triggers that would attract the female humans. It would also go unnoticed until after the child has started school and truly begins his social training, interacting regularly with other males and females of similar age. But the issue is, once he's old enough to start seriously taking in the role his apparent gender plays in society, he's not going to feel right about it because no one else like him will seem the same way. He'll be steered towards things that a young XY male with XY-expected hormones should be interested in, but he'll find himself more interested in what the XX-expected hormones are telling him. Then, over time, society will either tell him "No, you're wrong! Shape up, you little pussy!" or "Be who you are, free spirit!" or both at once, depending on what the parents and immediate surroundings are like. So, he'll pretend all his life, for fear of societal repercussions, or he'll act on it, despite the societal repercussions. Or he'll kill himself because that'll seem easier than choosing.
In a nutshell (see what I did there?), this kid is gonna have a bad time either way and it all began waaaay before any concept of woman- or man-hood came into it.
For fux sake. No, I'm saying that you don't get to claim that your idea of what "conventions of cellar etiquette" are, means anything at all.
Always THINK
Never GROUP-THINK
ffs indeed.
conventions of cellar etiquette exist. I defy you to deny this.
I "THINK" that one of those conventions is that we refer to each other by the way each of us introduces ourselves. This self-naming, this self-definition happens all over the board, and all over the board those definitions are used, almost universally, as the person who has stated the definition has stated the definition.
As an example, we used to have a well established user name "Br****a". The person behind that user name (asked and had some administrator-level person) changed the user name to something completely different, Trilby. There is a convention, a widely accepted belief and/or action, to adopt this new name. This is considered good etiquette. It is not my idea. I am not making it up. I am not "defining" it, I am pointing it out. Its meaning is that it exists.
Many times there are multiple names, nicknames if you will, that are also used. There are conventions around these names too. For example, you are sometimes referred to as UT; I am sometimes referred to as V. This convention is not a breach of cellar etiquette, but calling Lola Bunny or sexobon by their previous handle would be in bad etiquette since they've specifically asked to be disassociated with those descriptions. It's not me making it up, it's just me observing it. Specifically, deliberately, repeatedly disregarding a dwellar's reasonable request to be referred to in a particular way is a breach of etiquette. That IS my THINKING, irrespective of the group I'm in or not in.
No necessarily germane to this discussion, but prompted by CW's excellent post above.
We had a child at my school with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY syndrome). This was apparent in some of the classic symptoms of learning difficulties, poor speech and motor control and coordination. But it also meant that when he reached puberty he might develop female sexual characteristics, for example growing breasts.
All we could offer him at our school was meeting his Special Educational Needs. He's going to need more specific help in the future.
"Treatment may include hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, speech therapy and counselling."
Did we already talk about how many legs a sheep would have if you call its tail a leg?
Here's what the folks over at snopes have to say
[QUOTE=paraphrasing snopes]
sheep, legs, tails, men, property, slave, free, is, is not
[/QUOTE]
this is easy footfootfoot. There's a pretty well defined difference between a tail and a leg. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one. I agree completely with this.
Men, property, slaves, freedom, these terms are not as simple as a lamb's tail. What a man is depends more on context, as does slavery and freedom. Gender is much closer to these than it is to a lamb's tail when it comes to absolute definition.
Take a look at the words under Ibby's name in any post: "She", not "he", guys.
You may take this as 'request'...I don't.
#
Indeed: I introduced 'cock', but it has not been my focus.
My focus is on the reality of a chromosome and what follows or extends from that chromosome.
What follows or extends from the source are characteristics...remove the characteristics (by surgery, for example) and the source remains (you can stick a rod into a tail -- to make it useful as a leg -- and it's still a tail; you can remove the tail and the fact that the animal is genetically meant to have one remains).
This is my point, my focus.
#
No doubt 'he' is used in many ways, but, what is the primary definition and reason for 'he'? To signify 'male' (a state dictated by a chromosome).
#
When a person says, 'I am *transgendered', why should I 'not' accept that self-assessment? And, no, taking his word for it -- "I am a transgendered woman" -- is not the equivalent of agreeing to call 'he' 'she'. Therefore I rely on the testimony of the person in question, not shifty cultural tripe.
If he lies then, shame on him.
##
Please, Cyber, I'm not talking about 'manhood' as cultural artifact...I'm talking about maleness a physical reality sourced in the physical.
I know I can shorthand myself from time to time, but my words have been clear throughout, so -- even with shorthanding -- my meanings and intent are clear.
None of you is stupid, so I assume (especially in the case of V) that time worn strategy of 'what's that you say?' (pretended misunderstanding so as to distract and wear down the offender) is being deployed (and has been for much of this thread). Pick at nits and -- it is hoped -- the offender will just 'accept' and move on.
Good luck with that.
Lots of, as I say, shifty definitions are thrown about as though -- again -- believing something or saying it enough times negates what's real.
It doesn't.
*meaning 'I feel like the other sex' (and, perhaps, have altered myself to make flesh agree with sentiment)...a statement of self-assessment that any one is welcome to make...however, I'm not obligated to observe that assessment by accepting a redefining of 'she' to include XY.
'nuff said till tomorrow.
And second is that, whilst right now what is at stake is at worst violent assault and at best the experience (hopefully temporary) of shame described by Pam, the stakes have been much higher at other times and yet...those people still engaged in gender performance which put them at risk of utter ruination or capital sentence.
Dana, I hate to correct again, but violent assault is NOT the worst.
Being
dead is worse than being beaten.
Hundreds of us are murdered every year. Less than half are prosecuted. In the US, the most popular defense is the
trans panic defense. Despite it's weak legal standing, it has been advanced in many of the cases involving murder of a trans person.
There have been several high profile cases in the last ten years, most notably the
Gwen Araujo murder trial.
Most of the murders are never reported in the news and if they are, they get scant mention of any facts other than the trans-identity of the victim. Salacious information sells more advertising and garners more views than plain old information I guess. But then the news media almost inevitably get the gender wrong and refer to us as our birth gender and, if known, birth name. Even if the person's name had been legally changed. We just don't get no respect in major media outlets.
Even in the best of the options, shame is also a negative event. No one should be ashamed of who they are. You certainly are not. No one really is. Except us. And we are only ashamed until we learn to NOT be ashamed. And that process would be much faster and less traumatic if everyone else would just get over themselves and accept us for who we are and not what they think we are.
{off soapbox for now}
Pam
I take exception to that... i sure as hell know where I belong too. I'm a bit of a tomboy, but that doesn't mean i'm not trans*.
Transgender, yes. Andro? Probably. Transsexual? You have given me no indication that you wish to play for the other team. Please forgive me if I missed something. I do not doubt that YOU know who you are. But you have not specifically told ME that definition. Last I checked, you were exploring. That's fine. If you have arrived at a conclusion, I missed the announcement.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Pam
Sorry Pam I wasn't clear enough. Violent assault may well result in murder, but I was setting that against the state sanctioned execution of the past. Also I absolutely see shame as a negative. Nobody should feel shame over something as basic and fundamental as gender identity.
Basically my point was that we have come so far but have a way yet to go.
Just heard on the radio a trail for Saturday Live. Apparently one of the pieces today is looking at what happens to couples when a man and woman become two women after the husband has gender reassignment.
I heard that story, or a story just like it. It has a happy ending.
I am LIVING that!
So far, a happy story with a happy ending every now and then.
Transgender, yes. Andro? Probably. Transsexual? You have given me no indication that you wish to play for the other team.
Maybe I'm a little confused about your separation of terms here. In the circles I move in within the community, there isn't such a separation between the definitions. What defines the difference, in your parlance, between transgender and transexual? Are transexuals only those that desire SRS? Is transgender a particularly different category than transexual?
As far as those members of the (twenty-something, queer-as-in-fuck-you, anti-establishment) trans* community that I'm familiar with are concerned, the demarcation of "transgender" versus "transexual" is entirely a matter of whether the trans* person using the term prefers one or the other to describe themselves. as in, I prefer being described as transgender or just trans* rather than transexual, but I don't make a serious distinction between the two terms beyond which I like better.
The fact that the trans* community - to what small extent there's anything resembling a "community" - is so disparate and constantly shifting, it's sometimes hard to put together a unified set of terms and language. I hope i don't come off as belligerent, I honestly don't understand your distinctions here - how can I be transgender, but not transexual? The only set of definitions I've heard that seem to encompass your distinction is whether or not I plan on having SRS. Is that what you mean by saying I'm one but not the other, that I don't "plan to play for the other team"?
Here is a link to some articles written by a friend of mine regarding mental sex in terms of story development:
http://dramaticapedia.com/tag/mental-sex/
She is also transgender.
Is henry an
Oklahoma judge?
A so-called sex-change surgery can make one appear to be the opposite sex, but in fact they are nothing more than an imitation of the opposite sex,
...
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]To grant a name change in this case would be to assist that which is fraudulent,[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]It is notable that Genesis 1:27-28 states: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]The DNA code shows God meant for them to stay male and female.[/COLOR][/LEFT]
OMG. The magic book that claims all forms of life were created simultaneously in their present form is used in a court of law. I may have to faint.
Where's the separation of church and state when you need them?
Also what are hermaphrodites?
God's practice, or his upgrade?
If he couldn't control DNA he shouldn't have used it in the first place.
Ibby, you have hit on one of my hot button topics with the TG community; the complete lack of agreement on definitions and terms. If we cannot even agree on who/what we are, how can we expect the rest of society to accept us?
I use and define the terms this way:
TS = transsexual = a person who desires and is actively engaged in chemical and/or surgical alteration of one's body to parallel one's mental status.
TG = transgender = a person who is not comfortable with one's gender but who's dysphoria is not strong enough to impair daily life.
CD = crossdresser = a person who wears clothing appropriate to the opposite sex but who does so out of preference and not as a sexual fetish. Such a person does not generally experience dysphoria.
TV = transvestite = a person who wears the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of sexual fulfillment, but not outside of a sexual context. Such a person does not generally experience dysphoria.
Androgyne = a person who displays superficial secondary characteristics of both genders. May or may not experience dysphoria and rarely at an elevated level.
Drag King/Queen = a person who dresses in the clothing of the opposite sex (usually to extremes) for purposes of entertainment or performance. Usually but not always are gay/lesbian but experience no dysphoria and have no desire to alter their appearance other than superficially.
Hermaphrodite = a person (very rare) who displays primary physical characteristics of both sexes at the same time. Usually, these tend towards one or the other strongly. Most often, they are diagnosed at birth and surgically "corrected" immediately, but may be incorrectly gendered by the parents/doctors.
Asexual = a person who is gender neutral and prefers to be referred to as a "third sex", that is; neither male nor female. I am not sure about these people.
I will not bother to define sub-categories and fetishes as they get too numerous to deal with here.
Mind you, these are MY definitions and may or may not be accepted by anyone else.
I do not hold truck with those who are "trannier than thou" and seek to de-legitimize others based on where on the spectrum they are. I fully accept that some TSs do not seek surgery for whatever reasons. I also accept that some may be in more than one category or may change categories over time. Dysphoria is different for each individual.
I hold that transsexualism is a medical condition that is self-diagnosed and treatable with drug therapy and surgical correction. The degree of treatment is dependent on the individual. Once "cured" through a successful treatment regimen and psychological and social transition, one no longer suffers from the condition and should be legally and socially recognized as the target gender and not as a transsexual. The term 'transsexual' should be used as a noun and not as an adjective. In my opinion, of course.
Wait a minute... which image is he using? Males and females look quite different, which is the basic issue that a lot of people have. So... either God has got two (or more?) images or is a hermaphrodite. And if God is sexless, then neither males nor females are in God's image.
TS = transsexual = a person who desires and is actively engaged in chemical and/or surgical alteration of one's body to parallel one's mental status.
TG = transgender = a person who is not comfortable with one's gender but who's dysphoria is not strong enough to impair daily life.
Well, I live full-time as an out woman. I will be starting HRT in the next month or so, if my blood work turns out fine. I think i'd very much be in the former category, rather than the latter, in your terms.
I think perhaps we haven't been privy to the whole of your journey Ibs. When you first 'came out' you were talking in terms of gender exploration and not really feeling that either 'he' or 'she' was entirely appropriate.
Well, I live full-time as an out woman. I will be starting HRT in the next month or so, if my blood work turns out fine. I think i'd very much be in the former category, rather than the latter, in your terms.
Welcome! The water is warm! Very warm...
:welcome:
I think I missed the announcement also, Dana. Ibby, you are on report for not telling us everything!
Just wait until electrolysis! :shocking:
I'm... on HRT as of today. Whoa.
Congratulations!
Remember the day well, so you can talk about it to others. The "The Day I Started HRT" story is almost mandatory for newbs.
honestly there's not much story though! i was almost late for my appointment cause it was a morning appointment, and then i had class, and we got out early, but i forgot my wallet so I had to go back to the apartment and get it to go pick up the prescription after class. I also bought some pretzels while i was at riteaid. Now i'm eating cheese and pretzels and watching Arrested Development.
Now i'm eating cheese and pretzels and watching Arrested Development.
In a few weeks that will be Super Fudge Chunk and the Sex and the City 2 Blu-Ray.
Wait, you're starting with the HRT?
[ATTACH]40994[/ATTACH]
I thought you had a Subaru, but okay, have fun!
[ATTACH]40995[/ATTACH]
How much does that car cost, I wonder?
About a quarter million, I think I heard somewhere, and about 100,000 a season to race.
In a few weeks that will be Super Fudge Chunk and the Sex and the City 2 Blu-Ray.
Tcha.
Ibby will hang with ladies like Bri and me. Eat nachos and drink beer. And watch... Torchwood I guess. Dunno about Bri on that one. Dana and me maybe.
That's astonishing. Wow.
Also, don't the starting pics look a little like Ibs?
It's so subtle, and yet so obvious. That's a very talented surgeon.
