Understanding Bigots against Transgender

[WoodElf4U]

I spend too much time in my own head, wondering how others think. And I may have found a correlation regarding hate against those that don't fit the standard gender roles.

A classic example many hear is that homophobic men are internally conflicted with their homosexual feelings. But, I think it is different with men that hate transgender or related people. There can be the same element, but here was my thought:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

I know there are a few people that are transgender here, I am curious of your thoughts. Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

[Jarem Asyder]

Judith Butler gets at a lot of this in her books.

Basically we live in a society that has a very specific definition of gender identity (dichotomous male/female oppressor/oppressed strong/weak etc.) This is reinforced but how strongly gender plays into the normalization of identity (I identify as a white hetero male, someone else may identify as a white hetero female, etc.) Coming into contact with something that doesn't fit into this dichotomy causes anxiety and tension because it doesn't fit the "rules" so to speak (this is actually why parodies that portray women as strong and butch with feminine feeble husbands are so popular because they show how wrong the "incorrect" identity is.)

Women as desired object is part of it. It's part of the normalized identity of a woman. The crisis of homosexuality is also important when you have a dichotomous world view of gender (there is only male and female and nothing in between) and are confronted with more of a sliding scale of gender. Unfortunately, clashing worldviews tend to lead to some kind of violence.

The ideal solution would be to successfully denormalize the male/female identity schema. IF you just relate to people as people first then it allows for a better understanding of the "other" rather than a shunning of it.

I used to be really homophobic growing up, and it's hard as hell to undo that kind of wiring that says that men are supposed to be masculine providers and protectors and women are feminine fragile objects to be prettied up and protected. Now it's not even an issue to me. I had a friend whom I assumed was male when I first met him and only found out a few months later was a Female to Male Trans and it was met with essentially a shrug. Normalized attitudes towards people of any gender is what's most important.

[stasis]

but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well.
I can't imagine caring about that sort of thing. The idea that sexual objectification is unsavory seems to be a consequence of the idea that sexuality is something to be guarded, which in turn is part of a traditionally feminine role that traditional males wouldn't identify with. To objectify the sexual is to disconnect the pretense of values from the act. It is the application of those values that creates a mating process and excludes sexual partners. Since the more sex men have the more virile they're typically considered, I'd think being seen as a purely sexual thing by women should serve to make that man more significantly male in a traditional respect.

I haven't ever had a problem with trans people, so I don't speak from personal experience, but my guess is that it's disorienting to some people because it interferes with the social expression of their own identities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Also: the theory you pose appears to require that only males are bigoted against the transgendered? I mean, it doesn't seem like a woman would be particularly offended by a scenario in which men can be sexually objectified "as well".

[Damien Black]

Trans-gender and androgyny upsets our normal categorization of socialization and behavior. Categorization helps us understand everything in the world around us including our social behaviors and interpersonal relationships. This automatic thinking is how we know how to act around certain people.

When this is thrown into disarray by something out of the ordinary(or what we perceive as ordinary), it creates cognitive dissonance (disparity from what we feel with what we think), which creates anxiety. While in a perfect world people should rationalize this anxiety by understanding that trans gendered people are still human, people instead perpetuate these feelings with frustration or in extreme cases, hatred and prejudice.

Homophobia and many other societal conflicts are linked to this as well.

my 2c.

[WoodElf4U]

Judith Butler gets at a lot of this in her books.

I wasn't familiar with her, but now I might go book shopping :)

Unfortunately, clashing worldviews tend to lead to some kind of violence.

That seems to be the case, including culture/religion/etc. I was told by a young muslim man that transgender and crossdressing people was a sign of the end of the world, according to his beliefs... never mind the fact that it has existed for thousands of years in other cultures.

The ideal solution would be to successfully denormalize the male/female identity schema. IF you just relate to people as people first then it allows for a better understanding of the "other" rather than a shunning of it..... Normalized attitudes towards people of any gender is what's most important.

That's my belief as well.


I can't imagine caring about that sort of thing. The idea that sexual objectification is unsavory seems to be a consequence of the idea that sexuality is something to be guarded, which in turn is part of a traditionally feminine role that traditional males wouldn't identify with. To objectify the sexual is to disconnect the pretense of values from the act. It is the application of those values that creates a mating process and excludes sexual partners. Since the more sex men have the more virile they're typically considered, I'd think being seen as a purely sexual thing by women should serve to make that man more significantly male in a traditional respect.

I haven't ever had a problem with trans people, so I don't speak from personal experience, but my guess is that it's disorienting to some people because it interferes with the social expression of their own identities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

When a man has embraced the role of the dominant or pursuer of sex, to have the situation turn into something else is an unpleasant surprise for him. As you mention, having sex with several women supports the role of virility. But to sleep with a man, or someone transgender, causes him to accept (or violently reject) the role of a homosexual, which he has judged as being inhuman or at least not virile, because of non-procreating sex.

Also: the theory you pose appears to require that only males are bigoted against the transgendered? I mean, it doesn't seem like a woman would be particularly offended by a scenario in which men can be sexually objectified "as well".

I was considering mentioning women as well... in my opinion, if they have an issue, its due to cultural or religious standards. Stating that it is a sin or wrong for their community, but not personally conflicting as in males. The only time I have seen women take it personally is when they are in competition for a relationship and/or attention.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 05:35 PM ----------

Trans-gender and androgyny upsets our normal categorization of socialization and behavior. Categorization helps us understand everything in the world around us including our social behaviors and interpersonal relationships. This automatic thinking is how we know how to act around certain people.

When this is thrown into disarray by something out of the ordinary(or what we perceive as ordinary), it creates cognitive dissonance (disparity from what we feel with what we think), which creates anxiety. While in a perfect world people should rationalize this anxiety by understanding that trans gendered people are still human, people instead perpetuate these feelings with frustration or in extreme cases, hatred and prejudice.

Homophobia and many other societal conflicts are linked to this as well.

my 2c.

I think some people rely more on categorization than others, and build up exceptions. I admit I casually categorize people, but when they change or don't fit, I accept that. Obviously someone may be different than I can imagine, but it should not disrupt my world.

But when we allow it to become judgment, so that a person or their actions can be "right or wrong" that is when people take stronger actions.

[Jarem Asyder]

of Butler's books, I'd recommend "Bodies that Matter" and "Gender Trouble"

[daydreamer]

The idea that sexual objectification is unsavory seems to be a consequence of the idea that sexuality is something to be guarded, which in turn is part of a traditionally feminine role that traditional males wouldn't identify with.

if this kind of thinking is traditionally feminine and i have it, then i have to disagree with your characterization. what i find offensive about objectification is not that sexuality is something to be guarded; it has to do with limiting my sexuality to appearances.

for example. recently my husband and i were at the grocery and i noticed another man not too subtlely checking me out. i've put on a little weight lately and it's making me more of a meat-and-potatoes style of woman than i'm comfortable with - i don't like attention for that sort of thing. if the same man had overheard a conversation snippet of something i said and interjected with interest, i might have been flattered. instead i felt like a plate of food. meat-and-potatoes, meat-and-potatoes i kept hearing in my mind lol

so naturally i brought this up to my husband. he says, hey, i like a little meat and potatoes. well now that's completely different. here is a man expressing his attraction to me and of course i know he's attracted to more than just my body... a bit different.

[Jarem Asyder]

That's the major crux of the "desired object" issue. It's a wholly one sided thing that the woman (or man) is exposed to. You have no control over it and society "encourages" you to conform to the ideal.

[daydreamer]

I spend too much time in my own head, wondering how others think. And I may have found a correlation regarding hate against those that don't fit the standard gender roles.

A classic example many hear is that homophobic men are internally conflicted with their homosexual feelings. But, I think it is different with men that hate transgender or related people. There can be the same element, but here was my thought:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

I know there are a few people that are transgender here, I am curious of your thoughts. Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

do you think the same thing happens with crossdressers?

[Silverity]

do you think the same thing happens with crossdressers?

There has been a lot of violent attacks against both crossdressers and transsexuals/transgendered individuals. It's pretty sad. I've been really scared for two of my friends going through their transitions but so far both have made it out okay.

We discuss this a lot in my gender and health class. Humans love to compartmentalize things, including other humans. We created two sex types, even though there are about 5 known genetic variations, we then created two genders, even though there's an entire spectrum worth of differences between them.

One of the things we've talked about is how we can get rid of gender and the notion that there are only a handful of gender categories and instead strive for equality across the boards. It's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's possible.

[WoodElf4U]

There has been a lot of violent attacks against both crossdressers and transsexuals/transgendered individuals. It's pretty sad. I've been really scared for two of my friends going through their transitions but so far both have made it out okay.

We discuss this a lot in my gender and health class. Humans love to compartmentalize things, including other humans. We created two sex types, even though there are about 5 known genetic variations, we then created two genders, even though there's an entire spectrum worth of differences between them.

One of the things we've talked about is how we can get rid of gender and the notion that there are only a handful of gender categories and instead strive for equality across the boards. It's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's possible.

I would assume that Canada is a bit of a safer place to be, considering they made an actual decision on approving gay marriage. We have laws in place to protect people and attempt equality, but america we get stuck between human rights, ethics and religious ideals. There are some places I would never advise sticking out from the norm, its just not safe.

[Jarem Asyder]

In order to address it and get rid of you you have to address the issues that continually reaffirm the current ideologies, namely culture. If we can get past culture reinforcing gender stereotypes and male/female dichotomies then you can start to denormalize gender identities. The other option is removing the influence of culture, virtual environments hint at this (since you are just a string of text and a picture on a forum) but the problem with virtual environments is that they mostly adhere to cultural norms of the "real world." How many Internet communities do you know require you to input your gender as either male or female?

[Silverity]

Well. Gender tick-boxes are becoming optional, though the fact there are usually only 2 choices is a tad limiting.

The funny thing is that we're seeing more of the latest generations purposely breaking away from traditional gender roles. I'm hoping that the consistent boundary-pushing will eventually render gender irrelevant. I don't really get why people are so dependent on having two categories, or why they freak out so much if they see an exception to an already incorrect categorical system. I can understand that they haven't been able to reconcile something in their identity, but to actually link your sense of stability to the sexual and gendered identity of complete strangers... holy crap.

The second barrier I run up against, though, is how to disentangle gender from sex characteristics. We also create even more confusion by allowing people to use sex and gender interchangeably when they don't mean the same thing. Oii.

[Jarem Asyder]

Identity of the self is defined just as much by who you are as by who you aren't. The "self" always needs an "other" to be in conflict with. People love forming groups because that it allows the exclusion of other groups. I fight with a lot of my queer friends over this since queer groups can become just as exclusionary, albeit in different ways. Usually when a certain form of otherness gets normalized into society it just gets replaced with a different "other." Ideally you'd be able to get rid of this dichotomy all together by disrupting the hierarchical nature of it. If a certain "self" is no better or worse than an "other" then the need for oppression and differentiation goes away.

[pip]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can be whomever they please - it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
However, what does get my goat is the expectation that many of these folk have that everyone else should give them 'special' treatment simply due to thier choice.

Apparently equality only works in one direction :rolleyes:

[thod]

Understanding Bigots against Transgender

Is an ad hominem attack in that it states that anyone who opposes the argument is a bigot from the offset.

A man saying he is really a woman is no different to a man saying he is a dog. He can go down on all fours, sniff butts and bark, but that does not make him a dog. What it makes him is a mentally ill. The problem that these men have is not about being a man, that is a fact, it is about what a man should be and a society which sees their behaviour as deviant.

[stasis]

what i find offensive about objectification is not that sexuality is something to be guarded; it has to do with limiting my sexuality to appearances.

for example. recently my husband and i were at the grocery and i noticed another man not too subtlely checking me out. i've put on a little weight lately and it's making me more of a meat-and-potatoes style of woman than i'm comfortable with - i don't like attention for that sort of thing.
So you find the prospect of being objectified sexually bothersome because you dislike your appearance? If so, how do you suspect this might translate to traditionally-cultured women who are comfortable with their appearances?


i know he's attracted to more than just my body... a bit different.
Why does that matter to you, though? If the physical sex act itself requires mutual attraction, of what significance would you say his attraction to your personality in addition to your body holds since the physical attraction is already going to suffice? It seems to me that personality is something that has its significant expression in relationships, which could suggest that you prefer sexual encounters to include relationship potential whereas a traditional male's singular physical attraction to you would not indicate the quality of a potential relationship impending. That starts to sound like the sort of selective mating I described in my original post. Guard or reserve sexual attention for the invested mate; the one who satisfies a series of extended and not necessarily sexual values?

To contrast, I'd suggest, our traditional male is not holding out for this additional layer of interest in the sex act, and for that reason isn't as likely to be perturbed by his casual sex partner's lack of it. In any event though, I really doubt masculine bigotry toward transsexuals has much if anything to do with men being sexually objectified.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I spend too much time in my own head, wondering how others think. And I may have found a correlation regarding hate against those that don't fit the standard gender roles.

A classic example many hear is that homophobic men are internally conflicted with their homosexual feelings. But, I think it is different with men that hate transgender or related people. There can be the same element, but here was my thought:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

I know there are a few people that are transgender here, I am curious of your thoughts. Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

IMO, everyone is bi sexual to a certain degree and alot,in fact I'd almost go as far as saying most ,men are secretly dying to screw a hot transsexual. Seriously,pay a little trip to the seedier side of the net if you don't believe me. There's alot of pressure for "straight" men in the west to be masculine and being associated with a stereo typical gay males is the opposiate of said masculinity.

So, "straight" male gets turned on by hot trannsexual. Societal influneces make him feel ashamed,his ego is damaged, so his self hatred is transferred upon the transsexual.

[Storm]

I can't imagine caring about that sort of thing. The idea that sexual objectification is unsavory seems to be a consequence of the idea that sexuality is something to be guarded, which in turn is part of a traditionally feminine role that traditional males wouldn't identify with.

Sexual objectification is unsavory, not because it exploits that which is to be protected, but because it reduces the individual to nothing but an object. It dehumanizes a person in such a way that no other characteristics are valuable. Sex appeal is fleeting, unlike other traits which can be retained until old age. Objectification further steals a person agency - making them something to be pursued and chosen then someone to pursue and choose.

However, while sexual objectification may affect the homosexual relationship, it's not so clear how it would affect the transgendered group as a whole. Stasis' explanation about the gender narrative makes more sense.

[stasis]

Sexual objectification is unsavory, not because it exploits that which is to be protected, but because it reduces the individual to nothing but an object. It dehumanizes a person in such a way that no other characteristics are valuable
Hum. Does it accomplish this in the same way that selecting a tennis partner based upon athletic ability without regard to their political beliefs and philosophical leanings somehow reduces them to nothing but a racket and legs? Isn't it possible for some of this other stuff to be extraneous when carrying out a simple activity?

Sexual exchange seems like a straightforward human practice to me. I don't know what would be reminiscent of inhumanity in someone focusing their attraction or sexual motivation on the physicality of that exchange alone.


Objectification further steals a person agency - making them something to be pursued and chosen then someone to pursue and choose.
How does sexual objectification steal (or deny in any way) the desired person's agency? Surely you don't mean to suggest that it must result in rape, or something?

[daydreamer]

So you find the prospect of being objectified sexually bothersome because you dislike your appearance? If so, how do you suspect this might translate to traditionally-cultured women who are comfortable with their appearances?


i don't like being objectified regardless of my appearance, but yes it is especially bothersome when i don't like my appearance. if i had to examine why, it probably has to do with an assessment of the man making the judgment. i'm unhappy being what i consider to be fat; why should he get off on it? ugh he disgusts me ! lol

it goes to: there are a lot of men who like an unhealthy woman, in either body or mind. they better not talk to me. i don't want their pity or their help. and i don't want them thinking they can take advantage of me.

how do i suspect this translates to traditionally-cultured women who are comfortable with their appearance? i do not believe that there is such a creature. honestly. but i do imagine that different women process the very same thing very differently, of course.


Why does that matter to you, though?


rationally it does not matter. if he had been more discreet, the mere idea of there being men out there who like a little fatty lol is really no surprise. to each his own. it was being aware of his gaze that made me want to puke. i suppose it's accurate to say that for those brief moments it was personal, even though no words were spoken and we were several feet apart. since it was a personal exchange, i evaluated it personally.


If the physical sex act itself requires mutual attraction, of what significance would you say his attraction to your personality in addition to your body holds since the physical attraction is already going to suffice?


humans require more than physical attraction for sexual mating. is this really a news flash to you? what you describe sounds so evolutionarily and clinically correct, but it is devoid of the reality of what really goes on for the majority of people. for example, many people refer to "sexual chemistry." there is more to it than getting turned on by the visual. there is an evaluation of the personality - even if it is often a very shallow evaluation as compared to other connections. i'm sure you've also heard that the brain is the biggest sex organ.


It seems to me that personality is something that has its significant expression in relationships, which could suggest that you prefer sexual encounters to include relationship potential whereas a traditional male's singular physical attraction to you would not indicate the quality of a potential relationship impending. That starts to sound like the sort of selective mating I described in my original post. Guard or reserve sexual attention for the invested mate; the one who satisfies a series of extended and not necessarily sexual values?


this is very black and white thinking. the truth is somewhere in between. we aren't mere primates. primates aren't even the mere primates they used to be. what's going on is much more complicated. the simple aesthetic beauty of your original post stands; too bad it is inaccurate/incomplete.


To contrast, I'd suggest, our traditional male is not holding out for this additional layer of interest in the sex act, and for that reason isn't as likely to be perturbed by his casual sex partner's lack of it.


my experience with a selection of the traditional male is a bit dated but i think the data might be more timely than the type of male you're talking about. a lot of men do jump into bed with someone that makes them tingle on first site. this has happened to me. lol. whatever intelligent babbling i thought i was doing beforehand probably was just annoying to them. and we ended up in bed with no sexual chemistry. and they wonder why. you can make a case that i was holding out, but you weren't there lol. there were cases where the guy for whatever reason, could not get the job done. at least one case i'm thinking of i think he was a bit intimidated by me. i was supposedly so good-looking he never thought he'd actually have the opportunity... in effect he was holding out for someone to soothe his insecurities - an additional layer to the sex act? seriously. men are as complex, and as simple, as women when it comes to sex, even for one-nite stands.


In any event though, I really doubt masculine bigotry toward transsexuals has much if anything to do with men being sexually objectified.


i'm guessing this is a bit of a misunderstanding of the OP's original intent. i think he was saying he has detected a revulsion towards the idea of men being visually sexually objectified in the reactions of men who were surprised to find out they were admiring the looks of a man when they originally thought they were looking at a woman. it's not a universal. it need not even be the norm. it is not required for bigotry.

i have noticed this tendency in men and women (to a lesser extent in women but it's there) but i have also noticed quite the reverse in men. there seems to be a specific sexual perversion enjoyed by some men (many who would identify themselves as straight, others are less concerned with the label) at the very idea of another man being sexually objectified. it can be a big turn on. now there i would believe you, stasis, if you told me it was in part because there is an assumed clear message of sexual intent, devoid of additional layers - but i'm not a man nor have i been involved in such encounters so my understanding is limited to browsing craigslist LOL which, i might add is severely lacking in choices of these traditional males that are not holding out for additional layers... why is a good man so hard to find? !

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 09:03 AM ----------

Hum. Does it accomplish this in the same way that selecting a tennis partner based upon athletic ability without regard to their political beliefs and philosophical leanings somehow reduces them to nothing but a racket and legs? Isn't it possible for some of this other stuff to be extraneous when carrying out a simple activity?


again this is an oversimplification. i'm not a tennis player but i have been involved in team sports. say rowing. on crew, there is more to choosing other crewmates than their athletic ability. no matter how good they are individually, their effectiveness changes once they are part of the team. i would think the same holds for tennis partners. - the best tennis doubles will be those who have either by chance or understanding, compatible playing rhythms and styles, things that since i'm not a tennis player i cannot enumerate. chemistry if you will. you won't always know these things by visual inspection of individual play, no matter how strong your NT or ST is; but they are necessary to successfully combine the abilities of both.

[WoodElf4U]

Identity of the self is defined just as much by who you are as by who you aren't. The "self" always needs an "other" to be in conflict with. People love forming groups because that it allows the exclusion of other groups.

I think this is more common in american culture, not that it doesn't happen in others, but looking at our two party system, competing products, and social groups... it is as if we never fully let go of the civil war mentality.

A man saying he is really a woman is no different to a man saying he is a dog. He can go down on all fours, sniff butts and bark, but that does not make him a dog. What it makes him is a mentally ill. The problem that these men have is not about being a man, that is a fact, it is about what a man should be and a society which sees their behaviour as deviant.

I will enlighten you, because you are in need of it. First off, diagnosing someone as mentally ill is something you have no credentials for, you have as much right giving a prostate exam. And unlike the man-to-dog situation you created, transgender people exist, and it is due to developmental hormones. Scans have shown that transgender brains have similarities to the opposite sex, its physically true, not just "mental illness".
Here is some reading- To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 11:23 AM ----------

I really doubt masculine bigotry toward transsexuals has much if anything to do with men being sexually objectified.

Please elaborate, since that was the main point of my OP, I am curious why you think this is not a factor. A homophobic man that is internally conflicted with their sexuality may strike out at a gay man. Why can't a man whos sexual existence and personal identity of seeking sexual objects, become internally conflicted as well? In both cases, the tables are turned.

IMO, everyone is bi sexual to a certain degree....
Societal influneces make him feel ashamed,his ego is damaged, so his self hatred is transferred upon the transsexual.

That can happen as well, although I think that it may be a smaller factor.

[Jarem Asyder]

Not to mention you have it occur naturally also. Plenty of cases of people born with both or neither gender. As well as physically androgynous people of both genders.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Is an ad hominem attack in that it states that anyone who opposes the argument is a bigot from the offset.

A man saying he is really a woman is no different to a man saying he is a dog. He can go down on all fours, sniff butts and bark, but that does not make him a dog. What it makes him is a mentally ill. The problem that these men have is not about being a man, that is a fact, it is about what a man should be and a society which sees their behaviour as deviant.

Wow...just wow. How many episodes of South Park did you watch to come up with that?

1: No it's not an ad hominem attack to call people who hate transsexuals bigots.
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pretty much sums up this,and from what I've seen, the vast majority of your posts.

2: To compare gender dysphoria to...ermm...species dysphoria is so laughable I literally don't even know where to begin.

3: By men I assume you're referring to transwomen/ male to female transsexuals. For your edification there are trans men too/ Female to male transsexuals.

4: A mental illness can't be cured by altering ones appearance.

5: It seems you deplore people who go again'st social expectations. It's fortunate you were not born in Nazi Germany.

I'm interested in what gender you believe an intersexed person would be.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 06:03 PM ----------

That can happen as well, although I think that it may be a smaller factor.

Oh, I think it's a really big factor. They say most transphobes and homophobes are either bi or gay themselves. I see evidence of it everywhere....

[Latro]

I have three somewhat unrelated comments. I separate them with lines.

I really, really hate the terminology of these kinds of discussions. I learned fairly recently on here that the term "homophobe" does not mean, necessarily, "hater of homosexuals" but also "person who is uncomfortable around homosexuals". And these aren't the same concept. (I hope everyone can accept that much...) So I think by lumping in the latter with the former (and the analogous groups in the case of transgender people) we cloud the issue dramatically.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've also said it before and I'll say it again: defining mental illness is completely arbitrary. Perhaps the best definition is a mental facet that causes the person some sort of suffering...but then even with that I would find it somewhat difficult to say that a wide variety of attributes are not in some sense "mental illnesses". And these are things that people would hesitate to call mental illnesses, like being introverted, which may eventually make it hard to socialize when the introvert wants to, for a simple example. So I don't think in the hands of lay people ("lay" relative to the psychological field, which is the vast majority of people) the concept of mental illness, at least if we remove people that can't "function" (whatever the hell THAT means, but eventually you have to accept some concepts...) on their own from the discussion, is even useful for almost anything.

And even among psychologists it's problematic, because they'll be prone to make a diagnosis and then give the patient whatever the established treatment is for the diagnosis, instead of taking the diagnosis, getting some assumptions to test from the literature about that diagnosis, and then testing those assumptions in the individual case. If they all apply, great; they may have an open-and-shut case that has essentially already been solved by the field. If they don't (and they probably don't), then the psychologist has some actual work to do.

My point in saying this is that establishing whether or not being transgender, or homosexual, or anything "is a mental illness" is worthless for people who aren't psychologists. So can we please just give up on that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Removed, as what it was responding to was modified.

[Storm]

Hum. Does it accomplish this in the same way that selecting a tennis partner based upon athletic ability without regard to their political beliefs and philosophical leanings somehow reduces them to nothing but a racket and legs? Isn't it possible for some of this other stuff to be extraneous when carrying out a simple activity?

Sexual exchange seems like a straightforward human practice to me. I don't know what would be reminiscent of inhumanity in someone focusing their attraction or sexual motivation on the physicality of that exchange alone.

You're assuming that sexual objectification only occurs between two individuals engaged in a sexual exchange. In which case, I would agree with you because sexual prowess and appeal are the only traits desired.

However, sexual objectification often encompasses a larger realm of interaction. Taking your tennis player as an example, if their tennis skills were the only thing of import despite the exchange the player was engaged it, that would be more akin to sexual objectification.

Sexual objectification occurs no matter if the person is flirting, out dancing, catching the bus, or presenting an academic article on the the orbit of planets to a group of peers. Not that it always occurs, but if it does occur, it is often not limited to purely sexual exchanges.

How does sexual objectification steal (or deny in any way) the desired person's agency? Surely you don't mean to suggest that it must result in rape, or something?

I suppose agency wasn't the correct word. I meant that objectification can lead to a lower level of respect, and thus a lower level of options. In its extreme form, agency can be circumvented since the person is not thought of in any terms besides their competence at sexual acts.

[Jarem Asyder]

I think it would be good to point out that until recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and showed up in the DSMIII. Also until recently, hysteria was a mental illness that was attributed to "bitchy" women.

Psychology has a pretty sordid past with bigotry being validated through mental illnesses, it's getting better though. Gender Identity problems do appear in the current DSMIV, but who's to say how long they stay in there.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Anhedonic Lake, your 4th statement is a really strong statement that I question immediately. Note that I mean this in terms of potential; not that we can "fix" people by surgery (whatever that means), but that we could at some point do so. Unless you're ruling out brain surgery, which seems like a completely arbitrary distinction.

My initial choice of wording on that particilar point was ambigous. By physical surgery I simply mean altering ones appearance. I.E. Someone with Bullemia/Body dysmorphic disorder will still regard themselves as fat regardless of how much weight they lose.

The fact is that the vast majority of transgender people report great satisfaction once they transition. Many who don't are at a statistically high risk for suicide and severe depression.
The transition is incrediably difficult. It makes being gay a very easy lifestyle in comparison.
People seldom realise how hard it is. Many trans people don't transition and have a poor quality of life due to social attitudes exemplified by a particular post on this thread.

Sometimes I really do wish such people would wake up gender dysphoric and know what it feels like. I'm sure the amount of narcissitic,self rightous and transphobic rants would decrease very swiftly.

[Monte314]

Sometimes I really do wish such people would wake up gender dysphoric and know what it feels like. I'm sure the amount of narcissitic,self rightous and transphobic rants would decrease very swiftly.

Where are these rants? I'd like to see one.

[Hatsumomo1]

I spend too much time in my own head, wondering how others think. And I may have found a correlation regarding hate against those that don't fit the standard gender roles.

A classic example many hear is that homophobic men are internally conflicted with their homosexual feelings. But, I think it is different with men that hate transgender or related people. There can be the same element, but here was my thought:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

I know there are a few people that are transgender here, I am curious of your thoughts. Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

While that might be true for some men, I have a hard time believing that's the reasoning behind all of those who are opposed to transgenders. Keep in mind, there are women who are opposed to transgenders as well, which you didn't address at all. Could the same argument be used for anti-trans women as well? I don't know.

Having some experience with this, I think another large reason that people get a little skeeved out by transsexuals is that they see it as unnatural and deviant. Exchanging your penis for a vagina is a little more extreme than dying your hair blond. A lot of people think that you should be happy with the body parts that you were born with. It might be similar reasoning to why people are freaked out by this guy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Those who have known the transsexual for years also could be weirded out by it because they knew their friend/family member as "Mr." for most of their lives, and now all of a sudden they need to start perceiving him as "Miss." That would upset a lot of people's apple carts, and understandably so.

[machx]

I think the causes are:

#1 fear of the unknown
#2 homophobia (more fear of the unknown)

[Anhedonic Lake]

I think the causes are:

#1 fear of the unknown
#2 homophobia (more fear of the unknown)

I agree with 1 as a causal factor but be aware that there are transphobes who are cool with homosexuality. Hell, there are quite a few gay transphobes out their too. I know this from first hand experience.

[thod]

The argument does not just apply to transgenders though. Anyone that shows highly deviant behaviour is going to shunned. The theory is that their deviance is merely a surface symptom of a disturbed mind. You can never be sure what innocent action on your part will have them respond by lashing out at you, that makes them potentially dangerous. Few people can be bothered to spend the time experimenting to figure out what makes them tick, better to just shun them. Because they are shunned, they become bitter people which reinforces the belief that they are best avoided. Most people do not want to change the world, they want to navigate it. That means avoiding the sharp rocks such as transgenders.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Where are these rants? I'd like to see one.

Here you go.

The argument does not just apply to transgenders though. Anyone that shows highly deviant behaviour is going to shunned. The theory is that their deviance is merely a surface symptom of a disturbed mind. You can never be sure what innocent action on your part will have them respond by lashing out at you, that makes them potentially dangerous. Few people can be bothered to spend the time experimenting to figure out what makes them tick, better to just shun them. Because they are shunned, they become bitter people which reinforces the belief that they are best avoided. Most people do not want to change the world, they want to navigate it. That means avoiding the sharp rocks such as transgenders.

Wow. So rather than attempt to refute the arguments made against your post you just say " Oh they're bitter and dangerous nutjobs,so just shun them everyone. This will make them bitter which proves they deserved to be shunned in the first place". This rationale is pathetic on so many levels.

[WoodElf4U]

Keep in mind, there are women who are opposed to transgenders as well, which you didn't address at all.

Actually I did in a later post. (middle of post #5)

The argument does not just apply to transgenders though. Anyone that shows highly deviant behaviour is going to shunned. The theory is that their deviance is merely a surface symptom of a disturbed mind. You can never be sure what innocent action on your part will have them respond by lashing out at you, that makes them potentially dangerous. Few people can be bothered to spend the time experimenting to figure out what makes them tick, better to just shun them. Because they are shunned, they become bitter people which reinforces the belief that they are best avoided. Most people do not want to change the world, they want to navigate it. That means avoiding the sharp rocks such as transgenders.

You seem like a sharp rock yourself. You could label any group angry and bitter because they are a minority. But many people rise above that behavior, and the source of the problem is not their reaction, but the initial behavior they are responding to.

[Hatsumomo1]

Actually I did in a later post. (middle of post #5)




Sorry. I must have accidentally skipped over it.

[InfiniteLoop]

Is an ad hominem attack in that it states that anyone who opposes the argument is a bigot from the offset.

A man saying he is really a woman is no different to a man saying he is a dog. He can go down on all fours, sniff butts and bark, but that does not make him a dog. What it makes him is a mentally ill. The problem that these men have is not about being a man, that is a fact, it is about what a man should be and a society which sees their behaviour as deviant.

I cannot *believe* you would be so hateful, thod, as to *say* something like this. I personally know someone who is transgendered, male to female, and she is having an *extremely* hard time as it is. Transsexual/Transgendered individuals are currently at the point homosexuals were thirty years ago - outcast, hated, and the targets of bigots *just* because they truly feel that they are in the incorrect body. At one point, in one conversation with my transgendered friend, she told me that she hated how wrong her male body felt so much that she'd rather "cut it off" than have to look at it anymore. Saying that these people are sick is the same exact thing as calling homosexuals sick for being homosexual. There is NO grounding whatsoever. Just because the APA says it's true does not mean it's true.

And as for your psychological deviancy theory, I can debunk it. It would only, by the APA's standards, be considered a psychological sex deviancy if the only way the individual could possibly have sex is by behaving as their opposite gender, and even that theory's a bit sketchy. This also goes for Sadomasochism and other fetishes - the individual could have sex in the 'normal' way, but they would rather have sex like this, because it makes them feel good. If the person could absolutely NOT conceive of having sex without hurting someone/being hurt, then it would be a psychological problem according to the APA.

This is NOT the case with most transgendered/transsexual people. In the same way as Homosexuals, they did NOT choose to be born as they were. GLBT is NOT A CHOICE and it never *has* been.

If you want a recent theory, we can look at the child in the womb. While in the womb, a child is subjected to two separate hormone baths - one that sets the physical features and one that sets the mental features. We already know male and female brains work differently, and the physical differences are obvious. Generally, the brain is exposed to the same two wash pairs (male-male or female-female) in order to set the brain to the body correctly. However (as WoodElf already pointed out), sometimes this goes awry, and a female body gets a male brain chemical wash, or vise versa. The result is a female in a male body, or a male in a female body - and studies have shown that the brains of transsexual/transgendered individuals often lean towards the opposite of what their physical sex is. In essence, they literally DO have the right brain in the wrong body. As for having both sets of sex organs, we know for a fact this is a genetic problem - because of a failure during cellular meiosis after a sperm joins an egg with more chromosomes than normal, the child winds up developing both sets of organs. Their actual mental gender and identity may be anything in between.

Here is some reading- To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for posting that, WoodElf. :)

This bigotry and hatred is just as painful for transsexuals/transgenders as it was for the Blacks, or the Homosexuals, or even the Arabian-Americans after 9-11. It's hatred, plain and simple. You can rationalize it all you wish, thod, but it is still nothing but hatred to my eyes.

]The argument does not just apply to transgenders though. Anyone that shows highly deviant behaviour is going to shunned. The theory is that their deviance is merely a surface symptom of a disturbed mind. You can never be sure what innocent action on your part will have them respond by lashing out at you, that makes them potentially dangerous. Few people can be bothered to spend the time experimenting to figure out what makes them tick, better to just shun them. Because they are shunned, they become bitter people which reinforces the belief that they are best avoided. Most people do not want to change the world, they want to navigate it. That means avoiding the sharp rocks such as transgenders.

Wow. So rather than attempt to refute the arguments made against your post you just say "Oh, they're bitter and dangerous nut jobs,so just shun them everyone. This will make them bitter which proves they deserved to be shunned in the first place". This rationale is pathetic on so many levels.

And yet you spew more hatred. I cannot understand why a person would hate someone else just because of how they look/who they date/what they do. It's not logical and it's not rational. It's insane. I agree that those who show so-called 'deviant behavior' are indeed going to be shunned. But it *isn't their fault* that shunning occurs. Their actions might *initiate* shunning, but the action doesn't deserve to be shunned by default simply because it's not what society perceives as 'normal'. I could dress up as a clown every day and go to class like that, and I'd probably be shunned, but my action of dressing like a clown is not in and of itself 'deviant' simply because it's outside of what is considered 'normal'. The shunning does not come from me dressing oddly, the shunning comes from people who don't want to understand and accept. People who don't want to learn, because they're afraid of what isn't 'normal'. People who are ignorant.

Murder is a deviant activity if done in cold blood and should be shunned. Being transsexual or transgender is not a shunnable offense. Indeed, it's not even an offense at all, seeing as it occurred simply from a person being *born*. If transgenders and transsexuals who cannot help how they were born are considered as offensive as murderers, then we *really* need to revise our views of 'normality', or we're going to continue seeing hate crimes and bigotry.

I agree, AnhedonicLake. It *is* pathetic. It's pathetically sad.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I agree with the above post,you put it better than I ever could Infinite loop. Trans peoples rights and social attitudes regarding us are at the same level as Blacks in the sixties and gays in the seventies. Turing,a British man who helped crack Nazi codes was given a choice between chemical castration or imprisonment for being gay by the nation he served. He commited suicide afterwards. This is an example of such attitudes embodied in some posts in this thead have on oppresed minorities or as thod puts it "those dangerous people with highly deviant behaviour who should be shunned by society." It takes far more courage to be true to ones own nature than simply to conform to social expectations like a sheep,deviod of moral courage.
Still, I find transphobes,chauvanists and bigots in general interesting,in the sense of analysing what truly predicates their hatred for transsexuals,Africans,homosexuals and women.

[thod]

Still, I find transphobes,chauvanists and bigots in general interesting,in the sense of analysing what truly predicates their hatred for transsexuals,Africans,homosexuals and women.It is an evolutionary relic. For the group to function as a group, each member must be be able to identify both their group and their role within it. So in the US, whites and blacks form different gangs, each has group identity. The women also belong to the group, but they have a different role to the men. The homosexuals too are acting outside the role that a man should take in the group.

What the conservatives are interested in is this group cohesion. They believe that if everyone should do as they wish the group will cease. The resulting set of individuals will fall prey to other, more cohesive, groups. Individuals are no match for groups. All the individuals were killed off and we are all descended from group members. Thus deviants, of any sort, are dangerous because they will destroy that cohesion which allows our group to survive.

You can see this is the US where the conservatives complain about the breakdown of society, shared values and such. They fear the terrible order with which the Muslim world organises itself. Its highly rigid internal groups, such as the Mormons, are seen to be highly successful. They see the invasion of the Mexicans across the border as an out-group taking over 'our' territory and the lack of internal cohesion of 'our' group means 'we' will be defeated and displaced.

You say you want to understand the mind of others, yet you still put it all down to 'hatred' assuming they are less rational.

[Anhedonic Lake]

It is an evolutionary relic. For the group to function as a group, each member must be be able to identify both their group and their role within it. So in the US, whites and blacks form different gangs, each has group identity. The women also belong to the group, but they have a different role to the men. The homosexuals too are acting outside the role that a man should take in the group.

In the west there are very narrow views of gender,especially regarding men. Compare to older hindu and native american socities,whose civilisation is far older than the U.S. where there are up to five genders male,female,androgene,bi gender and transgender.
Why is it the the west has such narrow views of gender and views women as inherently submissive? I won't disagree that evolution plays an element but part of it is also due to social construct. Before the rise of Judeo Christian culture as the official religion of the Roman empire, which has a very narrow view of gender, promotes a patriarcial deity who frowns upon "effeminate men" and homosexual relations other European folk religions had Goddess deities and gave a more reverence and respect to the female gender. Judeo Christian mythology blames the female gender for the downfall of humanity,at least tacitly. Compare to Shintoism and other folk religions.
Sure, Catholics gave the west a female Goddess,are at least an idol bordering on the status of Goddess,in the form of the virgin Mary,but it's a Goddess which is subserviant to the Male Father Deity,and stripped of her sexuality which in nature give women power over men.
Homosexual relations and bi sexuality was considered far less deviant then it is now. I.E. Ancient Greece,Rome and Sparta.

Why are the desert dogmas so homophobic,transphobic and pateriarchial? Simply because they are desert dogmas and were created by small tribes in the desert who were at a high risk of being dying out due to their circumstances. So their religious beliefs were created in order to increase and maintain the population within their tribe.
Religion values are very clinical and pervasive when people are indoctrinated from birth. So these memes/social values have been passed on to western society and are adhered to even though they are becoming redundant. Never underestimate the power of religious belief.

Also look at the androgenous deities of hinduism ect. Asian countries and native American tribes are far more open to transgender people as they have a less narrow view of gender. In essence, they have not been infested with the patrarcial Deity of Jehovah and the minimalist view of gender which it promotes.

Never underestimate the role religion plays on social mentalities. Take Islam,transsexuals and homosexuals. In Islamic states transsexuals are allowed to have the option of a state sponsored sex change,due to a verse in the Koran which has been interpreted as condoning trangenderism. While Homosexuals are involuntarily castrated. Islamic socities are very group orientated. This is evidence for my arguement that both evolution and social construct/religion both play salient roles regarding attitudes towards those who deviate from respective group behaviour.

What the conservatives are interested in is this group cohesion. They believe that if everyone should do as they wish the group will cease. The resulting set of individuals will fall prey to other, more cohesive, groups. Individuals are no match for groups. All the individuals were killed off and we are all descended from group members. Thus deviants, of any sort, are dangerous because they will destroy that cohesion which allows our group to survive.

That's an outmoded and tribalistic mentality. It may have had it's uses when we were wandering around the desert but today it's more likely to hurt humanity as a species. Tribalism often leads to war,conquest and genocide. It's anocronistic and does more harm to humanity than good now.



You can see this is the US where the conservatives complain about the breakdown of society, shared values and such. They fear the terrible order with which the Muslim world organises itself. Its highly rigid internal groups, such as the Mormons, are seen to be highly successful. They see the invasion of the Mexicans across the border as an out-group taking over 'our' territory and the lack of internal cohesion of 'our' group means 'we' will be defeated and displaced.

You say you want to understand the mind of others, yet you still put it all down to 'hatred' assuming they are less rational.

Just because they fear the erosion of their values and society does'nt mean such idiosyncratic values are worth retaining. U.S. society,the conservative WASP society is ending. This is evolution. Whatever happens in the universe is natural. Mixing up a local gene pool is healthy and natural. This may be why foreigners tend to be perceived as attractive,especially to women,simply because they are foreigners. While men tend to perceive foreigners as a threat,as it lessens the liklihood of them passing on their genes. Which is probably the reason for the existence of the angry,misanthropic, white male sub-culture. Ironically you argue that the reason for hatred towards those who deviate from social expectations is,and the respective bitterness and dangerous of such minorities, is due to their deviation from the group,and are thus shunned. Ironically it's the angry,bigoted, straight white boy brigade which is becoming the deviant minority and are becoming shunned because the concept of tribalism is becoming smaller due to the "global village" and "conservative values" are becoming redundant.

They are indeed less rational.We don't need to fear/hate gays,effeminate men/butch women and trans because our concept of a tribe is becoming more maximalist,it's expanding. So the fear of our tribe dying out is redundant as on a local level nations(tribes) are more less likely to be eradicated due to improvement in health and technology and on a broader level the concept of what constitutes our tribe is expanding and becoming less minimalistic. In esssence conservatives are holding onto redundant fears and values. In fact conservatives are retarding the growth of humanity. So conservative bigots are now fast becoming the hated ones. Again this is evolution at work.

I find it ironic that in there is more violent crime in the religious and conservative U.S. than more liberal and non religious countries in Europe. What predicates their intolerance of group deviance is fear and this fear tends to lead to hatred.

[thod]

What you argue is a desire for what mankind ought to be, not what mankind is. To see something is true and reject it because you find it ugly is self-delusion. Every generation thinks things are different now but there is nothing new under the sun. The same forces of group contention that shaped us still do no matter how technology changes. This can be seen as natural law if atheist or God's law if theist. As such it is righteous.

The right is on the rise in Europe too. There is not a single country without a nationalist party. All argue the same, that what they had is under attack from outsiders coming in and social nihilists within. They look to the past for models. They see only anarchy in the anything goes model. They see how that will lead to breakup and conquest by other more rigid groups.

The outcasts, such as the homosexuals, actively seek to break up the solidarity of the group to better their own position. Thus they are dangerous and enemies of the state. Its all quite rational and nothing to do with emotions such as hatred.

Very few men would date a woman that used to be a man. A man that has had his privates cut off is not a woman, he is just a mutilated man.

[Anhedonic Lake]

What you argue is a desire for what mankind ought to be, not what mankind is. To see something is true and reject it because you find it ugly is self-delusion. Every generation thinks things are different now but there is nothing new under the sun. The same forces of group contention that shaped us still do no matter how technology changes. This can be seen as natural law if atheist or God's law if theist. As such it is righteous.


You assume it to be true and provide scant evidence that is so, bar sweeping statements. You also tend to ignore counter arguments,instead you simply reassert your belief in your position.
You seem to believe that gender is wholly innate and narrow, ignoring the empirical aspects.
While I disagree with those who argue such things are complete social constructs I also find those who claim gender to narrow and completely innate to be just as incorrect.

Of course such things as religion,society ect affects social circumstances,and thus affect they way people evolve. Evolution is predicated by adaption to changing environments. Those who fail to adapt,such as conservative, lose out.



The right is on the rise in Europe too. There is not a single country without a nationalist party. All argue the same, that what they had is under attack from outsiders coming in and social nihilists within. They look to the past for models. They see only anarchy in the anything goes model. They see how that will lead to breakup and conquest by other more rigid groups.

In Europe,these nationalist parties tend to be primarily focused again'st the Islamifcation of Europe rather than liberalism. France is a good example. It's a very liberal nation,where gender identity disorder has recently been removed as a mental illness in their version of the DSM, yet their nationalism is predicated again'st socially conservative Islam,which is a threat to liberalism. Another example of how social conservatives are becoming the deviant,dangerous group and are being shunned. Which just makes my argument stronger. Ironically Islamic socities tend to have alot in common with American conservatives.

The outcasts, such as the homosexuals, actively seek to break up the solidarity of the group to better their own position. Thus they are dangerous and enemies of the state. Its all quite rational and nothing to do with emotions such as hatred.

I would argue they seek to alter the opinions of the group,rather than "break up their solidarity". You honestly think gays are dangerous enemies of the state? Even if they are enemies of the state it is possible that the state is ethicially wrong. By your logic Oscar Schindler was an enemy of the state.( Fuck Godwin by the way before anyone mentions it.) Wow,how far will you go to attempt to justify bigotry,discrimination,persecution and hatred? As infiniteloop said,you can attempt to rationalise it all you want but I'm sure people are intuitive enough to know what's really going on here.

Very few men would date a woman that used to be a man. A man that has had his privates cut off is not a woman, he is just a mutilated man.

You're ignorance of trannsexuals is breath taking. Stop watching South park and do some actual reseach on transsexualism.They don't simply "cut off" their genetials,they reconfigure their gentials. If an intersexed person "cuts off" one set of primary sex characteristics,are they a man or a woman?
You say very few men would date a post op transsexual. This is arguably true,though some men do. I wonder why you bring it up. It has little relevance to the thread but I have my own theory. I can't post it though as I would receive another infraction for pointing out the obvious. Interestingly there's plenty of men who identify as straight who want to fuck a pre op transsexual,or rather be fucked by one. Though they would be unlikely to date them though,as social constructs such as the narrow definition of masculinity in Judeo Christian society is a threat to there masculinity/male ego. Homo/Bi sexual repression due to the fragility of the male ego never fails to amuse me.

[zibber]

Hum. Does it accomplish this in the same way that selecting a tennis partner based upon athletic ability without regard to their political beliefs and philosophical leanings somehow reduces them to nothing but a racket and legs?

Yes, and they are discarded as soon as they stop fulfilling this purpose.

You're assuming that sexual objectification only occurs between two individuals engaged in a sexual exchange. In which case, I would agree with you because sexual prowess and appeal are the only traits desired.

Even then, things can be so much deeper.

[thod]

You assume it to be true and provide scant evidence that is so, bar sweeping statements. You also tend to ignore counter arguments,instead you simply reassert your belief in your position.

Not at all. You are off-topic in that you are trying to win a debate. The thread is titled "understanding bigots" not "lets convert bigots". To understand, you need to follow their thought processes, not reject and criticise them. Walk a mile in another man's shoes and all that. If you cannot put yourself in that mindset then you will neither understand them nor be able to predict their actions. The idea is to begin to think like they do, just as method actor playing, say a boxer, will attend gyms and hang out with boxers, just to understand how they would react and what they would say in a given situation. Standing off and shouting about ethics means you are preaching not learning.

[Jarem Asyder]

Not at all. You are off-topic in that you are trying to win a debate. The thread is titled "understanding bigots" not "lets convert bigots". To understand, you need to follow their thought processes, not reject and criticise them. Walk a mile in another man's shoes and all that. If you cannot put yourself in that mindset then you will neither understand them nor be able to predict their actions. The idea is to begin to think like they do, just as method actor playing, say a boxer, will attend gyms and hang out with boxers, just to understand how they would react and what they would say in a given situation. Standing off and shouting about ethics means you are preaching not learning.

Kind of an interesting demand when one of the key problems bigots have is intentional ignorance towards what they are bigoted against. Bigotry is always worthy of criticism because that is how bigotry is marginalized. When bigotry is allowed to go unchecked it normalizes the bigotry and encourages further escalation of said bigotry.

[WoodElf4U]

What the conservatives are interested in is this group cohesion. They believe that if everyone should do as they wish the group will cease. The resulting set of individuals will fall prey to other, more cohesive, groups. Individuals are no match for groups. All the individuals were killed off and we are all descended from group members. Thus deviants, of any sort, are dangerous because they will destroy that cohesion which allows our group to survive.

You can see this is the US where the conservatives complain about the breakdown of society, shared values and such. They fear the terrible order with which the Muslim world organises itself. Its highly rigid internal groups, such as the Mormons, are seen to be highly successful. They see the invasion of the Mexicans across the border as an out-group taking over 'our' territory and the lack of internal cohesion of 'our' group means 'we' will be defeated and displaced.

That's an interesting theory, I had not thought of people only as groups and not as individuals before. That offers quite an insight into this political mindset.

The outcasts, such as the homosexuals, actively seek to break up the solidarity of the group to better their own position. Thus they are dangerous and enemies of the state. Its all quite rational and nothing to do with emotions such as hatred.

I suppose the most dangerous group would be these conservatives you speak of. Those that do not accept homosexual and transgender as part of the whole group, are pushing away people in the name of homogeny. Diversity in a group is the most important, because a weakness in one, can be a weakness in all. And the more groups you do not include in your own, can all become one large diverse group, that you do not associate with. It seems more rational to accept everyone.

[Latro]

They don't simply "cut off" their genetials,they reconfigure their gentials. If an intersexed person "cuts off" one set of primary sex characteristics,are they a man or a woman?
While that's definitely the goal, "reconfigure" implies that the final result functions like the genitals of the other sex, I think. As of now, it just doesn't. I'd have to say that it's somewhere in between "cut off" and "reconfigure".

And in a lot of cases intersex people, while ambiguous, do only have one set of functioning reproductive organs, as I recall, and the other set is what gets removed. (I'm less certain on the facts here, however.)

[thod]

Bigotry is always worthy of criticism because that is how bigotry is marginalized.

The thread title was about understanding. If you feel you already understand, then there is nothing more here for you to learn. If you manage to silence, you prevent others learning. The desire to marginalize is inappropriate. It is no different to starting a topic entitled "Tell us why you are homosexual" and then attempting to criticise and silence those that do.

[stasis]

Yes, and they are discarded as soon as they stop fulfilling this purpose.
Discarded, reduces, nothing but, just a, limited. Loaded and unqualified terms.



To see something is true and reject it because you find it ugly is self-delusion.
But this only holds if the truth of the thing is immutable. Culture is not immutable. Social identity, and therefore gender roles, are cultural in expression.

[Monte314]

It seems more rational to accept everyone.

I'd like some specifics, because I can't figure out what you are after.

What kind of acceptance is proposed here? What constitutes "acceptance", and how will we recognize it? Can it be passive disinterest, or must it be some proactive response?

Does acceptance merely mean grudging toleration? Silence? Or must it include advocacy?
Does it require me to change my views? If so, From what, to what?
Does it require me to change my actions? If so, which ones, and in what way?
In the process of satisfying you, what happens to my freedoms (association, speech, etc.)?

What *exactly* are you looking for here?

[firebee]

In the process of satisfying you, what happens to my freedoms (association, speech, etc.)?


You're just as free to act like an ignorant bigot, if you care to, as other people are free to form and express opinions of you based on your conduct. Neat how that works, innit?

[LifesEcstasy]

Back to the OP

I think it has more to do with the conflict of how they see themselves within their own gender role. For example, heterosexual male sees a transgender women, thinks she is hot, then later realises she, was\is a he. Feels conflict because he is now questioning his own heterosexuality as it's defined by society. That is, hetero man would never ever be attracted to another man....oh oh! OMG I've engaged in gay behaviour....?!!! Anger is then directed at the object of conflict, the transgender person. If it wasn't for their existence I would not now be questioning my own ability to stick to my gender role.

The problem fundamentally lies within the extreme notions we have of gender roles. That men need to prove their manliness and women need to prove their femininity through behaviour. And further if a person displays behaviour ascribed to the other sex they are gay and should be treated as such.

Discrimination is not exclusively reserved for transgender persons either, but is applied in varying degrees to anyone who steps outside of the basic hetero\homo molds. I am a basically hetero woman but as my preferences lie on the so-called feminine end of masculinity I am routinely subjected to disapproval from other women. They routinely suggest to me that my preferences are only so because I haven't met the right man yet. Men also disapprove of me suggesting that I choose such men out of fear of a real man. Both notions I find totally ridiculous and offensive. My preferences are my preferences.

[InfiniteLoop]

Back to the OP
The problem fundamentally lies within the extreme notions we have of gender roles. That men need to prove their manliness and women need to prove their femininity through behaviour. And further if a person displays behaviour ascribed to the other sex they are gay and should be treated as such.

Discrimination is not exclusively reserved for transgender persons either, but is applied in varying degrees to anyone who steps outside of the basic hetero\homo molds. I am a basically hetero woman but as my preferences lie on the so-called feminine end of masculinity I am routinely subjected to disapproval from other women. They routinely suggest to me that my preferences are only so because I haven't met the right man yet. Men also disapprove of me suggesting that I choose such men out of fear of a real man. Both notions I find totally ridiculous and offensive. My preferences are my preferences.

Thanks for bringing us back to the topic here, LifesEcstasy. This thread was turning into a can of worms.

I completely agree with your post. I think the problem with bigotry doesn't lie so much with ignorance (though that is a big part of it), but with our primary views of female/male roles. We're unfortunately stuck into thinking that men must behave one way and women another, and that belief doesn't allow for fluid thinking that we need. Oh, some have that fluid thinking, yes - but not enough. I think a lot of it lies with the older generations, too, and unfortunately the only way to fix that is to wait for the old beliefs to die off...

[daydreamer]

Oh, some have that fluid thinking, yes - but not enough. I think a lot of it lies with the older generations, too, and unfortunately the only way to fix that is to wait for the old beliefs to die off...

do i detect a lack of fluid thinking about older generations?

[vampyroteuthis]

Psychology has a pretty sordid past with bigotry being validated through mental illnesses...
...The theory is that their deviance is merely a surface symptom of a disturbed mind. You can never be sure what innocent action on your part will have them respond by lashing out at you, that makes them potentially dangerous. Few people can be bothered to spend the time experimenting to figure out what makes them tick, better to just shun them. Because they are shunned, they become bitter people which reinforces the belief that they are best avoided. Most people do not want to change the world, they want to navigate it. That means avoiding the sharp rocks such as transgenders.

I just wanted to put these two together because it's almost poetic, the way one poster made a point and the other almost immediately provided a perfect demonstration of it.

---------------------------------

...This is an example of such attitudes embodied in some posts in this thead have on oppresed minorities or as thod puts it "those dangerous people with highly deviant behaviour who should be shunned by society." ...
Still, I find transphobes,chauvanists and bigots in general interesting,in the sense of analysing what truly predicates their hatred for transsexuals,Africans,homosexuals and women.
I agree that there are similar logics at work here, even down to pathologising behaviour associated with a particular group. Here's another example, to add to Jarem Asyder's: schizophrenia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) for black men in the US (author interview here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)), which perfectly illustrates the weakness of genetics-based justifications for bigotry as there is no genetic foundation for schizophrenia, and the uneven diagnosis rates in the US don't reflect a larger transnational racial reality. Similarly, the reception of transgender and intersex people in the US is vastly different from what it is in other countries, as you pointed out.

There's also the fact that it's patronising to construct someone's gender identification as a pathological problem when the person concerned doesn't see it as such, and lives as a perfectly happy member of a gender group with no attendant psychological trouble. This is perhaps clearest in the case of intersex people who grow up not knowing that they're intersexed. The Caster Semenya (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) case is a great example of this. Her career has come to a standstill, after years of preparing for the Olympics she is not allowed to compete in any gender category, and her privacy was violated in the most spectacular way. As the South African IAAF officials quoted in this article pointed out, there are, again, parallels with the historical treatment of African women as objects of scientific scrutiny. Perhaps this is another form of the objectification that Storm pointed out, but I have to think some more about this.

Which brings me back to WoodElf:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.
I think looking at bigotry against transgender through these comparisons, both across minority categories in the US, and across nations and cultures, can be helpful here because it offers us a lot of counterfactuals in the form of cases where third genders aren't seen as threatening to male sexuality, though gay men often are. (India is one such example.) There's also the question of whether a similar logic can explain bigotry against trans men.

These comparisons also illuminate how similar logics operate across marginalised groups. As others have pointed out here, there's also a lot of bigotry against transgender people within homosexual and feminist groups. The Michigan Womyn's Festival is one example, where they continue to refuse to allow trans women to attend. It gets even more complicated because, in the case of the Womyn's Festival, many post-op transgender people supported the exclusion of pre-op trans women, which to my mind places too much emphasis on the operation and excludes those who prefer not to have one, as well as those who don't have the resources to get one. So class plays a part too.

All of this is to say, that while I think your explanation seems to me to echo certain anti-trans arguments I have heard, I think it's describing a particular bigoted argument within a limited cultural context. I do wonder if part of the bigotry is that people are threatened by the idea that they could be attracted to someone who they don't think "biologically" fits into their preferred gender. If that's the case, you would see a difference between those who identify as lesbian and gay, and those of us who identify as bi/pan-sexual or just plain "queer". This has largely been true in my personal experience, but as my experience is limited I can't generalise from it.

On a lighter note:
...The outcasts, such as the homosexuals, actively seek to break up the solidarity of the group to better their own position. Thus they are dangerous and enemies of the state. Its all quite rational and nothing to do with emotions such as hatred.
Yay, we're enemies of the state! This reminded me of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) piece, which was doing the rounds on the internet a few years ago. It invokes a lot of stereotypes, but I think in doing so it also shows how being bourgeois and gay is about as inherently subversive as Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

[Anhedonic Lake]

The OPs question regards comphrending the mind of transphobes.Considering the sheepish and conformist nature of social conservatives,when you consider the gumption it takes to lives as a transsexual, and the uncanny link between transphobia and misogyny-all I can say is this: We're more man then they will ever be and more woman than they will ever get.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can be whomever they please - it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
However, what does get my goat is the expectation that many of these folk have that everyone else should give them 'special' treatment simply due to thier choice.

Apparently equality only works in one direction :rolleyes:

I was just looking over this old thread and I actually missed this post- I feel compelled to address it.

Pip, being transsexual is no more a choice than being gay-in the sense that one has a homosexual orientation and chooses to act on it. One is gender dysphoric and also chooses to act upon it. I'm not sure what you mean by "special treatment"-I think we just want to be treated with respect and dignity. The special treatment argument sounds like something a social conservative would say about a homosexual.

[vampyremage]

It is difficult for me to comprehend the bigotry and intolerance of some people. If someone lives their life in a certain manner, so long as its not directly hurting anyone else, why should should that be anyone else's concern but that individual's? I don't claim to understand what it must be like to live as a transexual but that kind of intolerance towards any minority group never fails to bother me.

[John01]

I just came upon this thread, and it's good to see.

I spent many years of my life immersed in a belief system that grouped people into disdainful categories based on superstition and shallow opinion. Some of those opinions included the idea - as I'm sure everyone here is familiar with - that any sexual orientation other than heterosexual or any gender identity other than male and female were "evil" and psychologically impaired.

When I left that belief system and began researching things for myself and looking at those opinions with the same critical eye it taught me to look at everything else, I soon realized that there is so little real information that makes its way into people's minds.

I remember watching a documentary within the last year on transgender life, and it made me so angry seeing how much suffering people go through. From my perspective the suffering wasn't so much about physical issues, surgeries, etc. The suffering mainly stemmed from the pressures many cultures put on individuals to conform to an idea of gender that does not really line up with the natural world (being born with combinations of sexual organs or predisposed to a certain sexual orientation). To despise people for not being physically like them or having the same sexual orientations as them is completely insane to me now.

Not really much else to say except that I really respect people who can be who they are (as long as who they are in no way harms others, which is not what can be said for bigotry beliefs) even though the culture in which they live does not support them.

I appreciate reading the opinions expressed here because it helps me understand how people feel and think.

ps: one of the biggest questions I now ask people when they tell me they think all sexual orientation is a choice (and of course these people always claim heterosexuality is the only way to be), is if they were born heterosexual. That is, were they born heterosexual or did they have to choose? Most of them have never thought of it.

[dogwoodlover]

Check this out: People have a right to be bigots. They don't have to like you. And that's okay.

It strikes me as ironic that LGBT types are often obsessed with labeling those who don't approve of them as "dysfunctional", "suffering from psychological complexes and deficiencies", "beaten as children", etc., seeing as how that's usually what "haters" say about them. Somehow a person thinking there's something wrong with them implies that in fact something is wrong with the accuser?

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.

[Dung]

I like transgender people.
They usually have a great sense of humor - maybe for having to cope with so much bullying and bullshit.
You could say they are "men of the world" as well.
Very much so.

---------- Post added 01-08-2011 at 04:53 PM ----------

oh yeah and bigots are funny as hell too :-)

As long as they are not threatening each other, its fine.

Transgender people possibly know more about bigots than bigots about transgender, thus trans will prevail.

[John01]

Check this out: People have a right to be bigots. They don't have to like you. And that's okay.

It strikes me as ironic that LGBT types are often obsessed with labeling those who don't approve of them as "dysfunctional", "suffering from psychological complexes and deficiencies", "beaten as children", etc., seeing as how that's usually what "haters" say about them. Somehow a person thinking there's something wrong with them implies that in fact something is wrong with the accuser?

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.



It has more to do with the reasons for which they are condemned. No, not everyone is going to like you, but when the reasons are based on actual misinformation and superstitious beliefs that have no supporting evidence whatsoever, it doesn't fly.

[vampyremage]

Check this out: People have a right to be bigots. They don't have to like you. And that's okay.

It strikes me as ironic that LGBT types are often obsessed with labeling those who don't approve of them as "dysfunctional", "suffering from psychological complexes and deficiencies", "beaten as children", etc., seeing as how that's usually what "haters" say about them. Somehow a person thinking there's something wrong with them implies that in fact something is wrong with the accuser?

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.



Just because its a fact of life that being uncommon means there are going to be those that view you suspiciously or contemptiously doesn't make it right. So long as no one else is directly harmed, people should have the right to live their lives however they see fit without having to worry about the intolerance and judgements of others.

[firebee]

Check this out: People have a right to be bigots. They don't have to like you. And that's okay.

It strikes me as ironic that LGBT types are often obsessed with labeling those who don't approve of them as "dysfunctional", "suffering from psychological complexes and deficiencies", "beaten as children", etc., seeing as how that's usually what "haters" say about them. Somehow a person thinking there's something wrong with them implies that in fact something is wrong with the accuser?

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.



So what you're saying here is, it's okay for you to not like us because we're queer, and we should accept that... so it's not okay for us to not like you because y'all are bigots?

That seems like an eminently even-handed deal, that does.

[EL Gato]

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.



I don't know about condemning people who do not like the unusual people. It just feels that anyone who regards with contempt people different from themselves are very sorry specimens. Everyone is unique. Anybody thinking that they know what is in someone else mind just doesn't know that person well enough. They don't know humanity, theirs specially.

[dogwoodlover]

So what you're saying here is, it's okay for you to not like us because we're queer, and we should accept that... so it's not okay for us to not like you because y'all are bigots?

That seems like an eminently even-handed deal, that does.

A) I'm not talking about me B) I'm saying that opposition to a fringe minority group does not imply mental impairment or psychological dysfunction. It's to be expected. Demonizing is not necessary--education is.

[Elfrun]

Check this out: People have a right to be bigots. They don't have to like you. And that's okay.

You have to live with the fact that being uncommon means most people will regard you suspiciously or even contemptuously. But that doesn't mean you should just condemn everyone who doesn't like you.



Sure that is a fine point, no one has to like anyone and they can dislike anyone for whatever reason they chose but when someone hates you for something you have no control over the answer lies within them, not you, when there is no valid reason for their hate why is it wrong to condemn them? Hate is such a strong emotion, to get that reaction for just being "you" is quite disarming.

Let's say someone hates you because they hate men, you're not going to say that you're the one with the problem right, best you can do is ignore it, or if it's more than a few people attempt to understand why they hate you so much when you've done nothing to them, it's pretty normal to either patronise them or condemn them. If that situation arose chances are you'd get a heap of support and the man-hating bigot would be suppressed. Change the scenario to where you're trans and a very small minority with minimal support, even within the GLBQ community, there's enormous amounts of misinformation and insulting stereotypes, condemning the other person can help remind someone who society says isn't worth anything that the other person is the one with the problem.

Condemnation of another person isn't always about them, and it isn't always a negative thing.

[FreeFrag]

I do scoff at people who say they were "born in the wrong body," but that's more of a question of their logical capabilities than judgment of them on a personal level. Nobody is "born into" any body, they simply are born as what they are born as. If you are a gender-uncertain male and you have an XY pair, you can't argue you were "born wrong."

[Elfrun]

Do you scoff at the intersexed too?

[Anhedonic Lake]

I do scoff at people who say they were "born in the wrong body," but that's more of a question of their logical capabilities than judgment of them on a personal level. Nobody is "born into" any body, they simply are born as what they are born as. If you are a gender-uncertain male and you have an XY pair, you can't argue you were "born wrong."

I scoff at people at people who believe they know more than a professional neurologist etc.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Many transsexuals express their dysphoria as young as four or five.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[FreeFrag]

-_-

I am referring to the people with "spiritual" reasons. I guess I have to be more blunt.

[Elfrun]

I am referring to the people with "spiritual" reasons. I guess I have to be more blunt.

Yeah, you do, because that doesn't make sense. For transsexuals to feel they were born in the wrong body is pretty, well, accurate and logical. Cause they are.

So unless you're thinking alone the lines of God makes every baby as they're supposed to be, which is fairly easy to refute then iunno what "spiritual" reasons you're talking about.

[sunlover]

I spend too much time in my own head, wondering how others think. And I may have found a correlation regarding hate against those that don't fit the standard gender roles.

A classic example many hear is that homophobic men are internally conflicted with their homosexual feelings. But, I think it is different with men that hate transgender or related people. There can be the same element, but here was my thought:

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

I know there are a few people that are transgender here, I am curious of your thoughts. Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

Well if you want to call it bigotry it's your perogative, but transgender issues are nothing more and nothing less than a severe emotional/mental disturbance. We have not become more enlightened/tolerant over the last few generations but mamby pambyed into utter absurdity in what can pass for "normal" or "acceptable". Of course I feel much the same regarding homosexuality/bisexuality/beastiality/pedophilia. Somewhere down inside I'm convinced they all realize the obvious, their predilictions/behaviors/desires though "cough" are "normal" for them are abnormal for society in general.

[vampyremage]

Well if you want to call it bigotry it's your perogative, but transgender issues are nothing more and nothing less than a severe emotional/mental disturbance. We have not become more enlightened/tolerant over the last few generations but mamby pambyed into utter absurdity in what can pass for "normal" or "acceptable". Of course I feel much the same regarding homosexuality/bisexuality/beastiality/pedophilia. Somewhere down inside I'm convinced they all realize the obvious, their predilictions/behaviors/desires though "cough" are "normal" for them are abnormal for society in general.

Just because something doesn't pass for "normal" in society doesn't mean that there is something 'wrong' with that individual. There are any number of different behaviours and ways of being that might be considered unusual and rare in the society in which they occur including, as you mentioned, homosexualty and bisexuality. If its a behaviour that neither hurts themselves nor any other party then why should it be considered as something wrong for them growing from severe emtional/mental disturbance? If someone decides to listen to music that isn't considered mainstream does that stem from severe emotional and mental disturbance as well? Or how about if someone decides to dress a certain way that doesn't fit into the dress that most in their socieity adopt? Rare or unusual does not equate negate nor any sort of trauma or disturbance instrinsic in that person.

[Elfrun]

transgender issues are nothing more and nothing less than a severe emotional/mental disturbance.

Thanks for your professional opinion Dr Sunlover, clearly you have a detailed understanding of the causes of transgender issues. I shall tell all researchers out there looking into the physical reasons why it occurs to stop, it's simply a case of severe emotional/mental disturbance, they should revert back to shock therapy or other methods of fixing the mentally disturbed. :)

[phoboser]

Well if you want to call it bigotry it's your perogative, but transgender issues are nothing more and nothing less than a severe emotional/mental disturbance.

You must have a very thorough understanding of transgender issues if you know exactly where the topical/substantial limits of those issues stand, so I guess that you would have no trouble at all elaborating upon this understanding. Enlighten us?

We have not become more enlightened/tolerant over the last few generations but mamby pambyed into utter absurdity in what can pass for "normal" or "acceptable".

Does your judgment of what is acceptable derive from what can pass for normal? Because that's the only way the reasoning behind that sentence makes sense to me.

Of course I feel much the same regarding homosexuality/bisexuality/beastiality/pedophilia. Somewhere down inside I'm convinced they all realize the obvious, their predilictions/behaviors/desires though "cough" are "normal" for them are abnormal for society in general.

Yep, the opinions you hold seem to be exclusively derived from whether you perceive them to be held by society in general, not from a consideration of the issues at hand. FYI, I know that minority orientations and behaviors are abnormal by definition, can you tell me what that fact entails as far as how society should treat them?

[Anhedonic Lake]

Well if you want to call it bigotry it's your perogative, but transgender issues are nothing more and nothing less than a severe emotional/mental disturbance. We have not become more enlightened/tolerant over the last few generations but mamby pambyed into utter absurdity in what can pass for "normal" or "acceptable". Of course I feel much the same regarding homosexuality/bisexuality/beastiality/pedophilia. Somewhere down inside I'm convinced they all realize the obvious, their predilictions/behaviors/desires though "cough" are "normal" for them are abnormal for society in general.

Another person who believes they know more than a neurologist. Even if it were purely a case of it being predicated by emotional trauma;this alone does not make a valid argument to treat an entire demographic like crap. You can tolerate something and still dislike it but when you discriminate and abuse said demographic then that makes one a bigot. I think religious people are delusional but I tolerate and respect their right to practise their faith.

I am a transsexual and I am also bi sexual. Of course my sexual orientation and desire to live as my identified gender is normal for me but abnormal for the majority. Most people are cisgendered and straight, so I'm not quite sure where you were going with that one.

[yoginimama]

For the group to function as a group, each member must be be able to identify both their group and their role within it. ...What the conservatives are interested in is this group cohesion. They believe that if everyone should do as they wish the group will cease.

OK, so you've explained that conservatives value group cohesion. However, you haven't explained why conservatives tend to fixate so heavily on the racial and gender aspects of group cohesion. After all, there's more than one way to belong to a group--more than one role for everyone to play. A gay man might not "fulfill the role of a man in his group" in terms of who he sleeps with, but he might very well fulfill that role in numerous other ways such as working, serving in his country's armed forces, voting, volunteering in his community, etc.

So if conservatives are so interested in using group cohesion as a means to distinguish groups from each other, why on earth would they fixate on gender roles when there are so many other roles which are much more to-the-point? Gender roles tell you nothing about what national, ethnic or religious group someone belongs to. "Heterosexual married father," as a role, could describe a communist, a capitalist, a monarchist, a republicanist, a Christian, a Muslim, an American, a Peruvian, an Inuit...

So if conservatives are anxious to distinguish themselves from "others," they should highlight aspects of their group identity that are unique, not shared. The American Way isn't going to cease if some dude wants to become a chick, because the American Way doesn't own male heterosexuality. It is so common across all of humanity that it can not be considered a distinctive feature of American society. Now, tolerance of diversity, on the other hand....

Furthermore, transsexuals by and large should be completely exempt from such concerns (regardless of whether those concerns are valid or not). They do not necessarily want to behave "wrong" for their gender. They want to CHANGE genders. Many of them intend to take up the stereotypical lifestyle of their new gender once they achieve it. So what the hell is the problem? Fachrissakes, Iran allows transsexuals to transition.

They fear the terrible order with which the Muslim world organises itself. Its highly rigid internal groups, such as the Mormons, are seen to be highly successful. They see the invasion of the Mexicans across the border as an out-group taking over 'our' territory and the lack of internal cohesion of 'our' group means 'we' will be defeated and displaced.

This is a perennial among American conservatives--they always claim that The Enemy, whoever it currently is, will soon overtake us with the power of its rigidly-regimented society. That was the big line about the Soviets, for example. They had discipline! Except it turned out they didn't. Soviet society turned out to be a complete organizational mess, barely holding itself together--and finally, of course, dissolving into history with little more than a whisper.

These days, it would appear that Amcons are reduced to fretting about Muslims and Mexicans, who have NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY been accused of forming regimented, rigidly-ordered societies. Ever. Remember the old joke about the phrase "insh'allah"? "It's like manana, only without the urgency." Don't mistake suppressive/oppressive policies like purdah for evidence of social regimentation.

You say you want to understand the mind of others, yet you still put it all down to 'hatred' assuming they are less rational.

That probably has something to do with the fact that every thought process you've described here is, in fact, irrational.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I just wanted to say that I think there are a lot of people on here, regardless of whether they are religious or non religious, left or right, LGBT or straight and cisgendered, who genuinely have many misconceptions of what it is to be transsexual. That's understandable. I intend to write a blog in the next few days addressing the many misconceptions regarding transsexuals. I'm sure there are many T.S., on this forum alone, who are more knowledgable and more experianced than myself, but I feel it is something that really should be done. I hope it will make some sort of a positive difference.

[True Rune]

Transsexuals are people who "switch"? Out of the ordinary, but no more than myself I guess.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Transsexuals are people who "switch"? Out of the ordinary, but no more than myself I guess.

Not really. It's not a case of us being "gender rebels" or wanting to switch gender alliegences. It's more a case waking up on the wrong side of the fence, and wanting to return "home".

[True Rune]

I thought that was transgender.. Transgenders feel like they are the other gender or something else altogether, while transexuals "switch". It is odd that while I am not sexually attracted to males or females, I still very much feel like I am "male" and never felt differently.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I thought that was transgender.. Transgenders feel like they are the other gender or something else altogether, while transexuals "switch". It is odd that while I am not sexually attracted to males or females, I still very much feel like I am "male" and never felt differently.

I was going to talk about it in my blog but I'll guess I'll mention the difference between transgender and transsexual now. O.k. In general the term transgender is an umbrella term or spectrum, and a rather ambigous one at times. It covers everything from androgyne, to bi-gender to transsexual. Sometimes transvestism is even included. Personally I don't think it should be as transvetitism usually is more of an alternative sexuality rather than a degree of gender dysphoria. At times the term transgender denotes gender dysphorics who live as their identified gender, go on hormones, but don't pursue the full sex change.

Ultimately, I tend to avoid this by using the term gender dysphoric rather than transsexual or transgender for the above reasons. Also because the suffix of transsexual gives the false impression that it's a sexual orientation; which of course it isn't as one can be a-sexual and a full blown gender dysphoric.

[FeralFeline]

Imagine you are a heterosexual female. You get married. You have a couple of kids. Twenty years go by and you're 45. Your husband announces that he has always felt like a woman and prefers men. Your marriage has been a lie. Your life has been a lie. You feel less than a woman. You are facing a very real possibility of growing old alone and on reduced household income.

The transgendered person gets all the sympathy. The spouse is rarely mentioned. I understand that there is a great deal of social condemnation to be dealt with, but people should not get to hurt others because of there own cowardice and not be criticized for it.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I wouldn't say the transsexual person gets all the sympathy--far from it actually...but you raise a good point. That, at times, can be the other side of the coin.

Edit: I have no kids myself just for the record.

[nacht]

Imagine you are a heterosexual female. You get married. You have a couple of kids. Twenty years go by and you're 45.


Generally scenarios that start this way turn out to be emotional appeals not founded in any sort of rational discourse. It attempts to create a situation which is abstracted from reality and, while it may have touchpoints, serves your argument mostly because you have controlled the specifics independent of how it may or may not play out in reality.

What is more, by asking people to imagine this scenario, you are creating an argument to justify bigotry for whom the circumstances simply flat out do not match, e.g., people who start transitioning as teenagers, and projecting your own emotional state onto someone who it may or may not apply to.

Your husband announces that he has always felt like a woman and prefers men.


First, these represent two separate concerns. It could turn out that they have always preferred women: The second half may relate to a bigotry against homosexuality, but it is an independent concern from transsexuality.

Second, I should note that if transgenderism was socially more acceptable, then you would hopefully have already had the conversation about feminine feelings sometime in the last 20 years, and such transitions should not be all that sudden. If it was handled much better, the situation you describe would almost never happen because people could start transitioning younger.


Your marriage has been a lie.


Only if your marriage is founded upon a really screwy concept of marriage.

Your marriage is what it has always been: It isn't like (s)he's been conducting a secret relationship with the people down the street for 20 years you never knew about (lots of business trips): they simply have a diagnosable psychological condition and probably always have. Something they have probably been struggling with for a long time.

If they are no longer attracted to you, well, that happens too. It doesn't make your marriage a "lie," it just means that they are no longer sexually attracted to you.

Generally I place more value in my relationships than simple sexual attraction, your milage may vary.


Your life has been a lie.


Only if you think that a wife's sole meaning in life is found through her husband. Not her kids, life outside of her husband, parents, family, etc.

Sure, it may hurt and lead to some serious reflection, but calling it a "lie" is more than a bit of a reach if you are dealing with someone who is psychologically healthy.


You feel less than a woman. You are facing a very real possibility of growing old alone and on reduced household income.


The same thing can happen with divorce and widowing for all reasons. For men and women. It is scary, but not in any way an insurmountable problem. Especially if the other party doesn't immediately move to Thailand and cut off all contact but actually works with you to formulate a transition strategy.

What's more, recognize that this is not all about you. If the other part has to stay for another 30+ years in the relationship pretending to be something they aren't, how do you think that makes them feel, and you propose forcing them to do this simply so that you don't have to worry about growing old alone?


The transgendered person gets all the sympathy. The spouse is rarely mentioned.


Depending on the families involved, the transgendered person may get none of the sympathy and may end up trying to prostitute themselves on a street corner on Thanksgiving because their parents and spouse won't take them in.

The situation is not black and white, and who "receives sympathy" depends on the circumstances of the individuals involved.


I understand that there is a great deal of social condemnation to be dealt with, but people should not get to hurt others because of there own cowardice and not be criticized for it.

I suspect we are operating from radically different definitions of "cowardice," but I personally never label frank and honest discussion with your spouse about your feelings to be "cowardice."

[Tsuru]

I think a variation of the "uncanny valley" effect may be in play for some people as well. Just like how people get really creeped out by robots that are very human-like but have certain features that are very 'off,' I think some people have a natural psychological response to be creeped out by, for example, someone who looks/dresses/"acts"/sounds like a woman, but has several "off" things going on (physical frame, deeper voice, masculine facial features, adam's apple, thick body hair, ect).

I would wager that a lot of those who are experiencing this uncanny valley effect have much less negative reactions to those who have gone through extensive hormone treatments, as it helps to cross the gender valley, so to speak.

[tandoori85]

Everybody should have to right to do whatever they please with their bodies. Your body is your vehicle in life, do whatever you like with it. Idem with transgender.
But you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with this issue. Transgender is not a part of nature. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but those exceptions are anomalies of nature.

[nacht]

Transgender is not a part of nature. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but those exceptions are anomalies of nature.

The evidence--as has been repeatedly pointed out--is actually that it is very much "part of nature" and found in the structure of the brain. It isn't a "choice," and it is quite "natural."

[firebee]

At the age of three or so, I was contemplating changing my name to "George" so that I could be a man, as well as engaging in other plans regarding the characteristics of men that I shall leave tastefully undisclosed.

One would think that this would tell a person something.

And it did. However, since the sum total of my education on gender issues up until at least my early twenties was...


A "Tranny" is a man who wants to become a woman, and tries to do this by getting his dick whacked off and wearing trampy dresses; their notable characteristics are a) looking like freaks and b) being subjects of mockery.
Women who dress like men do so because they do not care about how they look, possibly because they are lesbians and therefore ugly; ugly women are unattractive to men and likely unemployable.

... in my cowardice, I failed to realize for quite some time that gender variance was something that could happen, that it was something that could happen to female-born people who were not obviously and conclusively exclusively attracted to feminine women, that it was possible for such a female (or female-born) person to deliberately express masculinity or maleness without being an utter pariah, and that I, myself, was such a person. To say nothing of the confused mess that was my understanding of my sexuality.

It strikes me as a bit churlish and unreasonable to expect a person to spontaneously come to a conclusion that they were not only not taught about, but were quite strenuously taught against.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Transgender is not a part of nature. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but those exceptions are anomalies of nature.

Oh God, I wish that were true-Xmas must have been delayed then. Anything that occurs in the universe is natural. Whether it is wrong or right is a matter of ethics.

[firebee]

But you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with this issue. Transgender is not a part of nature. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but those exceptions are anomalies of nature.

So is having unusually long eyeballs.

Oops.

Fortunately for me and everyone else at the shooting range, my retina could care less what combination of lenses are used to ultimately project a clearly-focused image upon it -- these lenses, regardless of their source, operate inexorably according to natural law.

My eyeglass prescription may make the guy at the LensCrafters turn pale, but it works perfectly for helping me see. Nature isn't bothered by the aesthetic judgements of particular humans.

[Zsych]

Hmm... honest opinion: Some of them are kinda freaky looking, and I don't really feel any natural affinity.

I've only seen them in whole trans-gender groups though, so not interacting normally within society.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Hmm... honest opinion: Some of them are kinda freaky looking, and I don't really feel any natural affinity.

I've only seen them in whole trans-gender groups though, so not interacting normally within society.

Maybe you saw crossdressers/transvestites/drag Queens and confused them with transsexuals. I'm going to generalise big time here but.....

TRANSSEXUALS

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DRAG QUEENS

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TRANSVESTITES

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[yoginimama]

But you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with this issue.

Sure you can. First, it's simply bad manners. We were all supposed to learn not to point, whisper, giggle, etc during kindergarten. All this high-minded talk about "nature" is just a grown-up way of saying "ETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. gro-o-osssss!"

Second, in the age of Google there is no excuse for ignorance. If a transgendered person enters your life/community in some way, and you are unsure what transgenderism is all about, enlightenment is just a search engine away.

Third, it's the 21st freakin' century, not 1322. So even if you don't care about manners and your eyes glaze over when you try to read, it's been-there-done-that time by now. The leading edge is transhuman.

[tandoori85]

I'm not saying transgender people should get flack for being who they are. I'm just saying it's not possible, at least for me, to act like it's the most common of things.

[firebee]

Hmm... honest opinion: Some of them are kinda freaky looking, and I don't really feel any natural affinity.

Heh, that's actually a pretty good description of my opinion of anti-transgender bigots.

...

In other news, I was contemplating on the uses of the term "unnatural", as shown above, and also "confused". Both of them, in a sense, amuse me for what I guess are similar reasons.

Discussion of differences in brain structure aside, there seems to be a more fundamental lack of understanding of what "nature" is, in labeling a transgender person as "not in nature". Like I said above, I'm severely myopic; I've also mentioned before here that I have an autoimmune condition that attacked my thyroid, and that the treatment for this condition resulted in my having essentially no endogenous production of the hormone levothyroxine.

Both of these conditions are ameliorated through the use of external interventions -- namely, the use of corrective lenses (or, hypothetically if not practically, corrective surgery to produce approximately the same effect) and synthetic levothyroxine, respectively. And here's the thing -- both of these external interventions are gloriously and beautifully natural.

What would be actually, truly, unnatural -- in a way that would, as a general principle, fundamentally break the way that humans have come to function -- would be if replicating the material characteristics of a given biological structure did not result in equivalent functionality. If, say, the retina refused to sense light that had been focused by external lenses, or if the body somehow rejected a given hormone based on its origin, despite its construction being identical. That would be weird. That would be perverted. That would be unnatural, and that would also be very, very bad for anyone who wanted to live in anything resembling a coherent universe.

In the same way, we can know that gender variance and the medical interventions associated with some corners of that spectrum are natural -- in accordance with natural law -- because they exist to be talked about. Testosterone and estrogen have a set of known effects on the body -- reproduce a given concentration of each, and the associated effects (within a given range of uncertainty) invariably follow. Similarly, the equivalence between male and female genital structures follow directly from their course of development in the embryo, and this equivalence directs (within certain practical constraints) any procedures aimed at making one set more closely resemble the other.

"Unnatural", in the sense that it is often used, refers to a human aesthetic sense of propriety that actual Nature utterly lacks. Which I find terribly hilarious.

...

A similarly amusing state of affairs comes along with the use of the word "confused" as applied to homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, et cetera, people. My classic example of the usage here being my mother's entry in the "most compressed way in which to bend over etiquette and interpersonal boundaries and buttrape them both, with regards to a transman essentially unknown to oneself" contest: "She's confused."

(Amazingly, the context of that particular statement actually manages to make it many times worse.)

When "sexual attraction" is supposed to be a way that you feel about boys that is different from the way you feel about girls, and there is some thing that you're supposed to do with boys that is so incredibly compelling that essentially everyone ends up doing it when they're grownups, and you spend the entirety of your teenage years wondering what this feeling is and how you know you have it while simultaneously wanting somehow to be... really good friends? ... with the cute girl who plays the bassoon, you will be confused.

(When, due to a distinct gender imbalance in your "social dance" PE elective, you are assigned to be the dance partner of said really cute bassoon player... you will be even more confused.)

And similarly, if you consistently seem to feel that the things that correspond to "being female" seem, to you, to be objectively undesirable and you're kinda half hoping that at the appointed time the stuff on the "exciting things that happen to boys" list from sex ed will happen to you even though you know that this would be, medically and socially speaking, a big problem, and yet the women around you seem to be quite attached to being female and demonstrating their femaleness and you can't fathom why... again confusing.

It seems to me that "confused" is a pretty good word for a person who perpetually feels as if they have missed and are missing an entire series of memos that everyone else seems to be getting.

But now -- let us say -- you eventually figure out what it is, this "sexual attraction" thing, and you determine that you experience this with regards to certain men and also certain women, and that this is known as "bisexuality", and that you are hence a "bisexual". And you figure out that there are other female people out there who kinda want to be men while not actually not being female anymore, and people who are like that can actually be that way without problems that are necessarily insurmountable. At this point, your state of mind can finally be roughly described as no longer confused...

And at this point, rather than before, when you've finally figured out what it is that you are...

Now is when you're apt to be described as "confused".

The hilarity, it is again hilarious.

[zibber]

In those men that first see a woman, and then realize there is another element, their value system is exposed. In these men, they judge women as sexual objects. Women have had to deal with this for ...ever. But in this new situation, the man is not only confronted with the idea that he is attracted to some part of his own gender/sex, but that men can be labeled sexual objects as well. They are as equal to those they judge as less. Instead of realizing all this, they view the transgender person as "wrong". And as any enlightened bigot will be, attacks the other person.

Interesting, although I think the brunt of this is the fact that anyone deviating from our quaint little concepts of "male" and "female" is actually seen as some horrible anomaly, someone unclassifiable and therefore not actually a proper human. It's pretty chilling, the way our conceptual frameworks operate.

Does anyone think their is a flaw in my concept? Or another explaination?

Funny you should put it like that.. :laugh:

---------- Post added 01-15-2011 at 01:52 PM ----------


But you can't blame people for being uncomfortable with this issue. Transgender is not a part of nature. Yes, there are certain exceptions, but those exceptions are anomalies of nature.

So lovely when a thesis is instantly demonstrated by some poor soul.

Not a part of nature. Utterly chilling to hear it put like that.

Not proper. Monstrous.

[tandoori85]

So lovely when a thesis is instantly demonstrated by some poor soul.

Not a part of nature. Utterly chilling to hear it put like that.

Not proper. Monstrous.
The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?
But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

[CortexBomb]

The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?
But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

Two-Spirit people?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not familiar enough with transgender in the European context to speak about that continent, but the Two-Spirit phenomenon has been widely documented in North America. Anything earlier than that is pre-history, and pre-history, by its nature, is difficult to reconstruct.

[Nemesis]

The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?
But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

But you don't.

You see it in other mammals as well. If you prenatally stress male rats, they develop female-typical social play patterns and take on female-typical proceptive and receptive behaviours during mating interactions. You can see similar patterns among Japanese macaques, drosophilia, and bonobos, too. There's also more recent studies that show this pattern in fish. Further, aside from fish and flies, the brain structures that take on feminized chemical and anatomical profiles under certain conditions tend to be very similar across different species. None of this is novel and has been known for decades. Note: the same is also true with regards to masculinized females. This all suggests that things similar to transgender have been with us (and a lot of other species) all along.

Sex and gender is not as cut and dry of a concept as you think. The notion of a binary pattern of sex/gender just doesn't hold up.

[zibber]

The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?
But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

The answer being?

Transgender people did not magically pop into existence in the 80s.

(Let's not even degrade ourselves to the point of having to discuss other species..)

[Nemesis]

If you are a gender-uncertain male and you have an XY pair, you can't argue you were "born wrong."

Having an XY pair is only one biological sexual dimorphism that exists. During development, a huge number of things like genital tissue, fat deposit patterns, neurodevelopment, and many many more biological things can become sexually dimorphic. Say, a person has an XY set but has feminized genitalia or a feminized neuro-structural profile (these things do happen)... would you maybe see where they derive their identity from?

Simple XY chromosome pairings are not an absolute marker for sex and/or gender.

[Anhedonic Lake]

The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?
But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

Another person thinks they're smarter and more knowledgable about this topic than a neurologist?

Many Hindu Gods/Goddesses are gender queer.

More here.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zsych]

Maybe you saw crossdressers/transvestites/drag Queens and confused them with transsexuals. I'm going to generalise big time here but.....



Alright, now that my view has been corrected, and I looked it up.

My main concern would be that if there's nothing biologically making them particularly different from their biological sex than it seems more like a psychological problem than anything else... and we have countless examples of the bizarrities the human mind is capable of, so this is pretty tame. Also, if they have a gender change, they still aren't really that gender.

(and since its mostly a matter of how other people are treating you when you look different (but haven't changed who you really are - these people are obviously insecure)

[ginandsour]

I actually ended a six year relationship with a person who turned out to be intersex. She--because that is the correct pronoun to use--was born with ambuguous genitalia and was 'corrected', which is to say mutilated by a doctor, to be male and was raised male.

I didn't end it because she is actually female, there were a host of problems between us that had nothing to do with her gender identity. So, I don't care if people transition. The bigotry against them is astounding and that's what I have a problem with.

Every year people all over the world honor Transgendered Day of Remeberance, which highlights the lives and murders of those killed each year who are transgendered. In particular, you'll note the level of violence in each incident, which frequently feature what investigators call 'overkill' or inflicting more damage than is required to kill a human being. The murders of transgendered people commonly have secondary wounds and injuries. They are especially violent deaths.

Transitioning does happen in nature. In zoology an animal that does so is called a sequential hermaphrodite, although it would be incredibly offensive to classify a human this way.

---------- Post added 01-15-2011 at 01:14 PM ----------

Alright, now that my view has been corrected, and I looked it up.

My main concern would be that if there's nothing biologically making them particularly different from their biological sex than it seems more like a psychological problem than anything else... and we have countless examples of the bizarrities the human mind is capable of, so this is pretty tame. Also, if they have a gender change, they still aren't really that gender.

(and since its mostly a matter of how other people are treating you when you look different (but haven't changed who you really are - these people are obviously insecure)

Thank you for taking the time to look at those photos, they are an excellent tool.

I suppose I'll have to frame this from a M2F point of view, as that's what I know. How are you defining gender? Legally, I can have a sex marker changed on my ID card in many states, so the law recognizes me as that gender.

If the law defines you as a particular gender, what would you consider 'makes' someone female, for example?

[firebee]

My main concern would be that if there's nothing biologically making them particularly different from their biological sex than it seems more like a psychological problem than anything else... and we have countless examples of the bizarrities the human mind is capable of, so this is pretty tame. Also, if they have a gender change, they still aren't really that gender.


Well, as nacht said above, there's evidence that indicates that there is something biologically making transgender people different from cisgender people -- their brain structures differ such that they more resemble those of the gender they think they are.

However, if we choose to ignore the above point, what do we have left? Fine, a psychological condition -- one where a great many interventions of various sorts have been tried, and one of them stands out among the others as the means most likely to produce a functional and happy person who isn't quite likely to kill themselves.

What should we do about the condition, then? The thing that works, or one of the things that don't work?

[Anhedonic Lake]

Alright, now that my view has been corrected, and I looked it up.

My main concern would be that if there's nothing biologically making them particularly different from their biological sex than it seems more like a psychological problem than anything else... and we have countless examples of the bizarrities the human mind is capable of, so this is pretty tame. Also, if they have a gender change, they still aren't really that gender.

(and since its mostly a matter of how other people are treating you when you look different (but haven't changed who you really are - these people are obviously insecure)

Well the evidence for a biological component is strong. Also I posted a short documentary on transgender children earlier in this thread. Many gender dysphorics identify as their desired gender from as young as four or five; and all tend to have pretty regular upbringings. It will be interesting to see what new evidence gives us over time. Even if it were a purely psychological condition repairitive therapy has proved to be as about as effective as a chocolate kettle. While transitioning does work.

As for not being really their desired sex after the SRS(Sex reassignment surgery): well what of the case of an inter-sexed person who identifies as female and is born with both primary sex characteristics. Are they not really male after their SRS? Also, considering the evidence presented transsexuals are already their desired sex where it matter most-the brain. The hormones and/or SRS is just to correct natures fuck up; and to relieve the dysphoria.

[nacht]

The poor soul is the enlightened soul's job. So, enlighten me. Tracing back to the origin of species, from primates evolving to mankind today, where along the timeline would you place the whole transgender concept?


Depends on how you define "concept," of course, but we have numerous incidents throughout history of men who have chosen to live as women or vice versa. Sometimes temporarily and sometimes for their entire lives after they get to the point where they can make a choice.

St. Mary of Alexandria lived as a male for the vast majority their life, and that the genitalia did not match the outer presentation was not discovered until after death in 508 AD.

Catalina de Erauso (17th century) was sent to a convent at a young age, escaped dressed as a man, and lived out the rest of their life as a male soldier in the Spanish army in the Americas named Antonio de Erauso. After Antonio's identity was discovered due to a deathbed confession to a Bishop (that was survived), de Erauso went back to Spain and was granted special dispensation by Pope Urban VIII to wear men's clothing and go under a male name. After some time to recover, de Erauso went back to the Americas and served until death in 1650.

Ulrika Eleonora Stålhammar (18th century) cross dressed, changed names to William Edstedt, and joined the army for 13 years and participated in the Great Northern War. Married a woman named Maria Lönnman around 1716, who did not find out she had married someone without male genitalia for some years (she thought her husband was impotent). Went into hiding so that she could get used to wearing women's clothing again after her sister told her that she had committed a "sin against the will of God," but took her time in doing in it.

After years of service to the King, Chevalier d'Eon said on returning to France in 1777 that (s)he was actually a woman, and King Louis XVI said that she may live our her life as such but only if she dressed in women's clothing. d'Eon agreed, though after her death it was discovered that she had male anatomy.

Willmer "Little Ax" Broadnax was a gospel singer who was only discovered to have a female body after his death in 1994.

Those are some specific individuals, but there are numerous other examples. In addition to the Two-Spirit phenomena already mentioned, we have:

- Hijra--who view themselves and neither male nor female--have a long history in India.

- Kathoey in Thailand similarly have a long history.

- Akava'ine have been around for centuries among the Cook Islands Māori.

- In the 19th century Chuckhi in Siberia, you have biologically male shamans who changed their hairstyle to women's styles, then clothing to women's clothing, and then married men. They were scorned by the society, but also deeply feared and thought to be very powerful.




But again, a poor soul like me, asking questions, to which I already know the answer.

Interesting how you "know" the answer, but seem to be entirely wrong.

[WoodElf4U]

I just caught up on the new posts, I was a little surprised to see my thread was still active.

I know some forum junkies are more interested in the facts, what by definition is transgender, the brain chemistry behind it, history, etc. But back when I posted my first post, I was just frustrated. As I often get when I run into narrow minded people.

I find it silly when people use the term "natural" or "unnatural". Humans themselves defy nature so often, creating cities to live in, cars to drive, those are not products of nature. Even life on the farm thousands of years ago, it was mankind that decided to plant crops and milk cows. No modern person can rightfully point at another lifestyle and claim it unnatural, we are all unnatural.

I think that the foundation for many of these conflicts are the rules we have for each gender. Over time, ridiculous rules are bent and broken. In the past, it was just as taboo for a woman to wear pants as a man to wear a dress. Humans, regardless of gender and/or sex, reach a wide spectrum of possibilities. We should embrace our diversity.

Personallly, I have been continuing to live and work as a man. It is more socially acceptable, but in truth, I wish things were different. I am not the kind of person that likes to be kept in check, I like to be free and happy. hopefully I will find my way to live as I wish to without much issue.