First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man

[Ripley]

Any way, regarding Kadark's opinion in this thread, I see it as an example of a member of a backwards civilization still living in the Middle Ages.

Well, I couldn't read through the whole thread, but he does raise a valid point about people not accepting themselves for what they are, not so much for who they aren't—a point that I can attest for myself. But I added my reason: society often makes one obligated to ignore who one is over what one is. I think.

 

[Avatar]

Well, those people mentally are another gender, it's the society which doesn't accept them for what they are.

 

[Ripley]

But how do they suddenly know they are of a different gender until they learn about the differences from... who? Changing one's appearance is cosmetic—like changing one's clothes, so as to be perceived. But changing one's appearance for whose benefit?

 

[Avatar]

Why suddenly? As I understand it's either known from birth or puberty. The same way as you know your gender. It's not about physical differences, it's about mentality.
So they change their appearance to suit their mentality in order to be in harmony with themselves and what is expected from their gender in a society.

 

[greenberg]

It's not about physical differences, it's about mentality.

If this is so, then people have souls (or some such "essence"), and these souls have genders, and these things are unchangeable.

- Does anyone really believe that?

 

[Avatar]

Absolutely no! People have mentality. Mentality is formed by the body - brain, nervous system, genes. I can't imagine why you mentioned souls.
It's the same as to say that temperament is a property of soul, which would be preposterous! By physical differences I meant the characteristic differences between male and female body.

 

[greenberg]

Basically, do you think that mentality is a given, and that a person's gender is an unchangeable given, just as their biological sex?

 

[Avatar]

Okay, I just checked the definitions, and mentality is not the correct term.
Gender is just like temperament, it forms in the womb and in the first few months after birth, when the human child unlike other mammals is still forming as if in the womb - the brain at least. Humans are born prematurely if compared to most other mammals.

During that time the gender of that person forms, and it can differ from the physical sexual characteristics due to chemical imbalances because of genes, nutrition during pregnancy and early age, as well as experiences.

So I think that gender is unchangeable and a given after it has formed, but it's primary manifestation is the behaviour patterns of the individual, not sexual organs.

 

[greenberg]

But how do they suddenly know they are of a different gender until they learn about the differences from... who? Changing one's appearance is cosmetic—like changing one's clothes, so as to be perceived. But changing one's appearance for whose benefit?

As for "suddenly" - Cognitively, a recognition or realization of something slowly builds up over time, during which the person experiences some confusion and stress, and considers extremes in one direction or other. At some point, however, there is a "break-through", and the person has decided one way or another. The break-through feels sudden because in the time and events leading up to it, the person hasn't been necessarily aware of the confusion that was taking place, or wasn't sure what the confusion was about.

As for changing one's sexual appearance: I think the people who undergo surgery to change their sexual appearance are the ones who most strongly identify with sexual and gender roles - and not the "normal" population. Which seems paradoxical, as one would think that the transsexuals are the ones more "open-minded" about the whole thing ...

 

[Kadark]

Tiassa,

Um ... do you not have public libraries where you are?

Sure do, although I'm the type of person who needs to purchase the book they're reading. Well, that, and because there are no copies of the books I was recommended to read. Either or.

Not religion, not history, but your own corruption. Apparently you missed the point.

So Iran was brought up to show my "corruption"? This is an absurd theory, Tiassa, even for you. I think Iran's laws were brought up to win me over, seeing as I usually see eye-to-eye with the way the Republic is run. Not this time, amigo.

—I can't say I'm surprised that you don't see it.

Call it what you'd like. In our world, gender changes are filthy and inhuman - disallowing such practices is by far the majority opinion.

It's not supposed to be appealing. And don't be so arrogant as to presume that you know what God thinks. Neither God nor Nature needed create people who are the wrong gender, much less allow them to recognize it. Except that neither God nor Nature are extraneous.

I'm under the assumption that any creator, regardless of religious surrounding, would not be pleased with His healthy creations forcefully changing what He has given them.

Get used to it: the transgendered have their place in society, and I'm not at all sorry to say that place is not at the killing end of a gun.

Perhaps in your society, such is true. However, such societies are destined to a miserably catastrophic plummet. People run amuck doing what they wish to do, and nobody can do a thing about it because "it's none of their business". The only appropriate place for such lawless individuals is at the killing end of a gun. The sooner people realize this, the better.

Avatar,

Any way, regarding Kadark's opinion in this thread, I see it as an example of a member of a backwards civilization still living in the Middle Ages.

You're the one supporting people who change what they were naturally born with through surgery, yet I'm the one who's exemplifying a backward civilization.

Bells,

How is it "baseless scientific fact" that people are sometimes born with both sets of chromosomes and sometimes their sexual organs does not represent their sexual orientation as ascribed to those particular organs? Parents in such instances often find that their daughters or son's are horrendously unhappy from a very early age, depressed, act out, sometimes even attempt suicide, because they do not fit into the gender role of their particular sex. Tests will then usually pick up on the issue with their chromosomes. It is up to the parents then, on how they handle it. Most tend to allow the child to be who they are, regardless of their sexual organs and then look into therapy and possible surgery later on in life. It is not baseless. That is reality for people born of the wrong gender.

According to Wikipedia:

"Most transsexuals agree with the idea proposed by Harry Benjamin, that gender is hard-wired in the brain before birth. As such, most transsexuals believe that being transsexual is instead an intersex condition, a congenital birth issue unseen by others due to its location in the brain: a mis-match in the sex of a person between that of the brain and that of the body."

This is what is given. According to transsexuals, their gender is hard-wired in their brain, and later, through some indescribably magical process, their physical appearance is endowed with (gasp!) a different gender. Well, how does this happen? Since when did humans have two distinctly separate gender slots (for inner-self, and outer-appearance)? I can't recall any such phenomenon.

Most things, yes.

And you don't see the problem with this? It's unbelievable how acts such as murder, theft, pedophilia, rape, etc, are all being erroneously labeled as mental disorders. The overwhelming majority of the citizens in society know full well the consequences to their actions, and the overwhelming majority have a say in whether they're going to commit a crime or not. Defending them is shameful - blame must be placed where it is due. Everybody should be held accountable to their actions; in very few circumstances should any other factor be considered.

Would you expect a 4 year old who has both sets of chromosomes, born with the wrong set of sexual organs and feeling like they are not what they are meant to be, to have "self-responsibility"? Would you tell such a confused child to 'buck up and deal with it'? Or would you try to help them?

My help would be to tell them to accept what God has given them. It's interesting, actually - studies have shown that up 18% of those who undergo sex-change operations regret it, and are not satisfied (not including surgical errors). This should tell you something, shouldn't it? One in five people is certainly a significant number from a medical standpoint. Who knows how long it will be before the other 4 in 5 people regret their choice as well.

How can one have a normal life and "gender" if they are born with the wrong gender? Please, tell me?

Nobody is born with the wrong gender - simply, we are born with a gender. If you don’t like your gender, then that’s too bad. If you don’t like your black/white skin, then that’s too bad. If you don’t like your height, then that’s too bad. Gender is simply one component of the human nature we sometimes don’t appreciate and wish we could alter. Some things you have to take to the grave, and gender is one of them.

 

[Orleander]

...It's interesting, actually - studies have shown that up 18% of those who undergo sex-change operations regret it, and are not satisfied (not including surgical errors). This should tell you something, shouldn't it? ....

Doesn't that mean 82% were happy? Do you have a link to that study?

 

[Tiassa]

By what, then, do you justify yourself?

So Iran was brought up to show my "corruption"?

On what, other than your own corruption, can you remotely justify your bloodlust?

Not religion. Not history. Not anything but yourself. And that self is vicious, with murderous judgment.

In our world, gender changes are filthy and inhuman - disallowing such practices is by far the majority opinion.

Our? Who?

I'm under the assumption that any creator, regardless of religious surrounding, would not be pleased with His healthy creations forcefully changing what He has given them.

It is dangerous to assume that you know what God thinks or nature intends. Both tend to defy our limited perspectives on a fairly regular basis.

Perhaps in your society, such is true. However, such societies are destined to a miserably catastrophic plummet. People run amuck doing what they wish to do, and nobody can do a thing about it because "it's none of their business". The only appropriate place for such lawless individuals is at the killing end of a gun. The sooner people realize this, the better.

Such haughty presumption to justify such dangerous vice. No, Kadark. It's not surprising.

The uglier thing here is a conscience infected with murderous judgment.

 

[Kadark]

Tiassa,

I would certainly concoct a counterattack to your post if there was anything within it which remotely resembled debatable material. Instead, you've managed to paint me a bloodthirsy, corrupt individual, to which I have no reply for. If you're content with repudiating this debate on the basis of my supposed bloodlust, then so be it.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Tiassa,

I would certainly concoct a counterattack to your post if there was anything within it which remotely resembled debatable material. Instead, you've managed to paint me a bloodthirsy, corrupt individual, to which I have no reply for. If you're content with repudiating this debate on the basis of my supposed bloodlust, then so be it.

Could it be that his post hit home, and now you find yourself speachless when faced with your own apparent displays of barbarism?

 

[Kadark]

Could it be that his post hit home, and now you find yourself speachless when faced with your own apparent displays of barbarism?

Not at all. I could certainly reply to his points, although if you examine them, you'll notice there isn't a whole lot of debatable material within. More or less, they consist of cleverly-disguised insults which serve no purpose in the debate.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Not at all. I could certainly reply to his point, although if you examine it, you'll notice there isn't a whole lot of debatable material within it. More or less, it consists of cleverly-disguised insults which serve no purpose in the debate.

Only if you find stating the obvious insulting

 

[Tiassa]

I would certainly concoct a counterattack to your post if there was anything within it which remotely resembled debatable material.

You're right. It's hard to debate against the self-evident. However, there are a couple of personal opinions in there. Perhaps a murderous, judgmental conscience isn't ugly. You could try to make that argument. Perhaps God can be known so well that people can tell us what It is thinking. You could try to make that argument; it's not like the world isn't full of people seeking to profit off the assumption that they know what God is thinking. You could argue that prescribing the murder of certain people you don't like isn't bloodlust. That, I confess, would be an interesting argument to read. You could argue that it is surprising that haughty presumption leads to dangerous vice. Or you could split hairs about what makes a vice dangerous.

There's plenty to argue, Kadark.

 

[Kadark]

Tiassa,

Then present your arguments, Tiassa. For better or for worse, Bells and some others (such as Enmos) are actually attempting to argue concrete, distinct facts about transsexuality, and the morality/acceptability in sex-altering operations. For the most part, you're attempting to make an emotional appeal by labeling me terms such as "bloodthirsty". Whatever, man - go on ahead and continue doing so. It truly doesn't phase me, although it does strike me as an odd choice of moves in a debate about transsexuality and surgical operations which change sex. To me, it is evident you have nothing of substance to debate, and would prefer to interject irrelevant affairs within an argument which contains a strict domain and distinct topic. Nobody is claiming to know how God thinks or functions, nor did anybody but yourself introduce such an immaterial topic. There is no bloodlust in denying people surgical operations which remove or add genitals, regardless of how you personally feel.

 

[shichimenshyo]

There is no bloodlust in denying people surgical operations which remove or add genitals, regardless of how you personally feel.

Is there also no bloodlust in killing those people that have had these operations preformed?

 

[Kadark]

Is there also no bloodlust in killing those people that have had these operations preformed?

First you ban the operations completely, and then you implement the death penalty for those who do it anyway.