Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gogogirl

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Astrology Sign
    you're kiding


  • Homepage
  • Biography
    You wouldn't believe it if I told you anyway.
  • Location
    East Coast
  • Interests
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,563 profile views
  1. Inconceivable.
  2. Tiny nit-picking math-nazi comment - I've heard it was 2% of the population, making us 1/3 of the INTJ population I was going to take up the 'nature vs nurture' implication - I also 'feel' (with little evidence to support it) that the INTJ mindset might be rather heavily nature. But - "makes others cry" doesn't sound like an INTJ trait, to me at least. I echo jerry's welcome!
  3. I've always giggled at the non-emphasis on the scene in "Broadcast News" where Holly Hunter's charcter takes in the comment made to her that "it must be wonderful to always be the smartest person in the room". Not pausing a millisecond, she replied "No - it's terrible".
  4. When I took a hearing test for Uncle Sam (it's a long story) - the guy taking the results cards said "holy sh*t, you can hear way the hell up there" - and he looked at 600 cards a day. I used to hear brain-hurting sounds in department stores that no one else noticed. Now - I'm 67, and I can't hear OP's at all, and Warrior's goes away at around 12k. (Then I'm not entirely sure my crap computer speakers (Bose Companion 2) - or my sound card - can reproduce those frequencies.) And sometimes I have trouble reading street signs, and my back hurts most all the time. And then you die.
  5. Some are hear to explain. Some are hear to learn. Some are here to discuss. What are you here for?
  6. The X chromosome has many genes on it. It does many other things than contribute to the sex of the offspring. There is NO viable haplotype YY - because such a mutation would not produce a live birth - one needs an X chromosome to build a person (any person). One only needs a Y chromosome to build a male person. In the more common XX vs XY combinations, the thing that is determined is the sex. Most agree (I think) that gender identity is influenced by hormones, which usually (but not always) coincides with sex. That is the reason that your continued confusion of the terms makes discussing the complex topics - too difficult to contemplate. 'Transgenderism' - is not an ideology. As you indicate in some of your confused ranting, it has a biologic component. It is real. It is not 'just an idea'. We have grasped that the physical existence of transsexual and intersex people challenges your world view and - in your 'opinion' - is the root cause of all the world's woes, and therefor the extermination of all transsexual and intersex people is - a modest proposal in your eyes. Some of us think that is unsupportable 'logic' - and a horrible, evil thing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the real story - but you need to understand Greek: Don't tell anybody I told you - it's a secret.
  7. Mistake - sorry.
  8. As I explained (clearly) in a post above - yes, we use "gender and sex" as synonyms in day-to-day speech. However - those terms are so non-specific as to cause confusion if you try to whip them out in a discussion about transsexuals and intersex and sexual development. But - there you go, again. (For instance - if "gender" and "sex" are the same thing, then transsexuals don't exist. When your words clash with reality, you need to adjust your words - not your reality.) Second - the "medical profession" described it (on my invoices) as orchiectomy, penectomy, abdominoplasty, and vaginoplasty (and, later labioplasty). That's 'cause - you know, they have words for stuff, and have forms to fill in for insurance billing (none for me, thanks - just take that all out of my pocketbook, because - you know ... fork trannies) and statistics-keeping. The kinds of things the DSM people worry about. Other people - mostly 'trans' people (and cis people who consider they ought to peek in on the community and tell them how to behave and what words to use) - have argued their case for 'proper' nomenclature, taking into account people's feelings and attempting to be all things to all people which is now called "inclusivity" - and the consensus - for now - seems to favor: Transgender - "because transsexual is old-fashioned, and would confuse the cissies because they would confuse it with 'homosexual', and think it had something to do with sexual orientation". I've told them all that I object, because I changed my sex, not my gender - but - did they listen? No, they did not. Gender Reassignment Surgery (sorry - the consensus has moved on - you're behind the times - it is now more PC to say "Gender Confirmation Surgery - keep up, will you?) where I said Sex Change or Sex Change Surgery - because (hey - wait - this is where I came in) I changed my sex, not my gender. Isn't it frustrating when people won't use the words you think they should. You people are lucky I'm not elected grammar queen - or you'd all be in so much trouble.
  9. err ... actually - yes, you are. Can we - at least - be honest about that? As to the OP - paraphrased as "if the concept of 'gender (identity)' being socially constructed is true, then the 'concept' of transsexuals must be wrong" - or feminism must be entirely invalid. My personal extrapolation/elucidation is that the timeline of the ideas is So from at least the period of 1971-1997, the work of John Money to advance and publish the 'proof' of his theory that human infants are 'tabula rosa' with regard to their gender identity, and that the fact that you can form the gender identity of a girl in the body of an infant born XY (and presumably vice versa - but ...*) surely had an influence in the development of (some) feminist 'theories'. That is - they had 'scientific' support for the belief that women and men are the same, and that the only difference is that women are subjugated by the patriarchy by enforcement of an inferior 'gender (identity)' from societal pressure - in the form of gender expectations - that one fulfill the requirements of the expected gender role. (*Actually - Money's theory was more related to 'what to do with intersex conditions', and his urging was that "if there's doubt/ambiguity, snip off the offending appendage - because medically it's easier to "dig a hole than create a post", and it doesn't matter to the infant because what 'gender (identity)' they develop is entirely dependent on their upbringing.) Problems with that: 1) the experiment was represented in much rosier terms in John Money's accounts than they actually went down in reality - and he didn't own up to that - probably because his bias that his 'theory' of gender identity as tabula rosa would have to be re-examined. The 'experiment' was actually a total failure, and actually 'proved' the theory to be wrong. (That is - to summarize - the attempted inculcation of a female gender identity onto the infant 'Joan' - failed. David never 'felt himself to be female', and eventually switched to living as a male, and ultimately killed himself, at least partially related to the childhood trauma and 'transsexual transition' as an adolescent. (If it can be said that a boy reared as a girl could 'transition' to being a boy.)) 2) Volumes of feminist theory had been generated in those decades, and there was no 'going back' and re-evaluating them, given that 'having writ, the finger moved on' from there, establishing previous foundational theories as having been written in stone. So - the question about one or the other of these things being wrong: is resolved by the physical existence of transsexuals - and the specific, spectacular failure of the foundational 'experiment'. I think Judith Butler is one of the 'good people', generally, and that John Money did some groundbreaking, important stuff. Doesn't mean one and/or the other of them can't be wrong in some aspects - without the field of feminist studies/theories and/or intersex/transsexual-ism studies having to disappear in a puff of smoke. (Also - tangentially - I sense you feel that discrediting 'social constructionists' (as representatives of feminism) somehow also discredits transsexuals, suggests you feel transsexualism to have arisen from feminism. That is (also) wrong.) edit Sorry you got bodyslammed, E7. Help you up?
  10. Good. (You fooled me.) Suggested reading (to understand where (I think) some of the "tabula rasa" feminist philosophy comes from): John Money, David Reimer. I consider myself a feminist. Some feminists are anti-transsexual. I am not comfortable with 'philosophical' discussions, to the extent they begin to take the words we use to describe things - and then confuse those words with the things - leading to ignoring reality and substituting philosophical speculations for reality (rats). Also - to the extent they substitute endless discussion of 'what somebody else wrote' to the detriment of what YOU think. Sounds like we have some things in common. If you've finished ragging on 'constructionists', would you care to state your own conceptualization of the issues? (of course, burdening you with the task of enumerating the troublesome concepts) This might turn out to be a discussion! (Don't count on me being on the opposite side from you, though.) ...... added to this post 14 minutes later: Know you're in medical environment. Think about this: (IANAD) Men who are having prostate problems are sometimes prescribed 'anti-male-ing' drugs (yes?). Know what they say when they do a DRE on me? They say "can't find it" (real person-speak for "non-palpable"). This is because (some?) prostate problems are "testosterone sensitive". Know how much testosterone I have - less than your cis female friend. Zero.point.none, essentially. I'm not an "activist", but after weighing "the risk of having prostate problems" against "the unforkingly unbelievably devastating impact of telling somebody you are trans - and having them think of you as a man" - I have - personally - finally decided to lie to them. I think your strong statement is a little - strong - given your degree of involvement with any trans people (in spite of your personal trauma with male parts - and I'm sorry (and have expressed sympathy before, if I remember) for your troubles). I don't have any of the parts you've had trouble with, and doctors cannot find my prostate, so - no, I do not agree with you that my risk for problems with my body due to my having a male chromosomal sex (I presume I do - I've never had it checked) is the same as 'any other male'. TMI - bail now! I did have a UTI recently, though, and had the doctor prescribe an antibiotic and a drug that turned my pee the most unbelievable gawd-awful dayglo bright orange you've ever seen - which I could clearly see on the Poise pads I was wearing, so - I guess you and me, dude - we're just alike. (PS - I didn't tell her I was a man - 'cause, that's like rude. They call it 'spooking' somebody.)
  11. 1) explained above this comment 2) really - I think gender is socially constructed? Thanks for clarifying my simple mind for all the others out there (again - read the comment I made above. I don't think gender is socially constructed - I think the use of the word "gender" in a discussion about transsexuals marks one as ... one who doesn't read.) 3) really - how many ridiculous memes can a person jam into a single post? 4) (it's not in your post): I speak about my own experience - about transsexuals. If you want to talk about people who claim to be giraffes, go ahead and do so - but be aware that discussion has nothing to do with transsexuals. I "claim" to be who I am - just (exactly) like you "claim" to be who you are. 5) Now - for something interesting - why do you "claim" to be who you are?
  12. Interesting, Thod. I have. Some 'male' rats who were injected at certain points in gestation - - at the right time, suppressing testosterone results in 'male' rats with no penis - at a different time, suppressing testosterone results in 'male' rats - with a penis - who make nests and 'present' to male rats (lourdosis). Probably just socially-created imaginary gender-constructionist kind of thing, isn't it? Psychologically whack freaky rats - they're obviously insane - and completely freaky. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? Thanks for the curiosity. ================================= Also - Gender = I have no idea what you or anybody else means when they say this - a useless term. Works for some contexts, maybe - USELESS for talking about transsexual people - please stop it! Gender roles = the behavior/characteristics that people expect of a person, given their sex physical sex = what the doctor who delivered you yelled reproductive sex = what sort of gametes you can produce hormonal sex = which hormonal regime you are currently being influenced by sexual orientation = who you want to take to bed. who cares? I don't care. gender identity = your sense of 'who you are' gender presentation = your intent in your presentation - clothes, hairstyle, mannerisims, etc. gender perception = inverse of presentation = what sex people perceive you to be gender conformity = how well you hew to the expectations of - whichever society expects of you personality = whether you like knitting or playing rugby. (I don't care.) Please, people - if you want to parade up and down on my turf - at least have the investigational intensity to use terms that make sense to somebody who has had the impetus to investigate the issue. Clarity - that's what discussions on this 'topic' would benefit from. You can use your own terms if you don't like these - but if your conceptualization of the issues doesn't include at least that many facets - you are out of your league in attempting to insinuate transsexual people don't exist. Also - my presumption - given the many, many previous expeditions into the territory by very badly informed, (apparently) biased individuals I have witnessed - is that you're not fully up to speed on the concepts - enough to get into a real, interesting, meaty discussion of the issues. "Transsexuals are crazy and they don't exist" is more a pathetic rallying cry for haters that it is a springboard for meaningful discussion. You wanna fight, or you want to discuss? What kind of INTJ place is this, anyway? ============================================= Also - gender-constuctionists (whoever/whatever the hell they are/that is) - have said some things - silly or otherwise - therefor transsexuals don't exist. Wtf kind of 'argument' is that?
  13. A transgender man is a man who was born a woman. So you're probably right.
  14. Recently re-watched "the Big Lebowski" at my friend's house. To celebrate, tonight I had a couple Caucasians. Earlier - there were bowling pins and short skirts. Settled down now. What condition IS my condition in?
  15. Yes - "women get custody more often than men". Yes. Yes - "men rarely contest custody hearings". Yes. Yes - "and when they do, they usually win". <rampant, unsupported speculation - most men do not want the responsibility of being up in the middle of the night to change diapers, or taking the kid to kindergarden, or taking off work to take the kid to a doctor, or ...". Refute that if you want - it's personal speculation. The facts are listed above. Google it.> Red pill my ass. Smell the reality roses. Caucasians are wonderful.