Transgendered discussion (split from HoS)

[spartasman]

Well, I have had a few days to brood over my stupidity and the reactions to it, so I believe its about time I explained myself.

My first post was an example of the thoughtlessness I have put into the subject at hand, and a failure to communicate what I meant. That does not excuse me from what I posted. I must state that I did not mean to insinuate that transgender people are abominations, and that the usage of the word 'abomination' was a failure on my part to truly delineate my own feelings on the matter.

My second post was mostly myself trying to cover my ass with emotional drama. I do apologize for that, as it was an immature reaction that did not belong in the conversation (if it could be warranted as such).

Because I failed to express my opinion in a logical and non-inflammatory manner, I feel that instead of simply apologizing for my stupidity, i will attempt to express my opinion in a manner that can be debated, not decried. I understand that the subtext is 'mockery of stupid people', but I would rather learn from my stupidity than distance myself from it.



I do not view transgender people as abominations, nor do I view them as unnatural. I do however view the process that creates transgender people to be abnormal, and that therefore, transgender people are themselves abnormalities to normal biological development.

I have no disagreement with the practice of transgenders living their lives as the gender that they truly are. I do however have some issue with understanding it. I have been discussing this issue with Simon for the last few days, and during the discussion I was told that a transwoman with effeminate mannerisms and personality could exist as a woman because her actions are that expected of a woman. I personally believe that whether or not a trait or action is 'masculine' or 'feminine' it is unimportant when the gender of the person is concerned as I have had several friends who express personality traits and qualities that are 'effeminate' (though several of them are homosexual) but they were all perfectly happy living as males/females. I would like clarification on whether or not transgender people always have personalities traits reflecting their mentality.

The only issue I have with transgenderism is the treatments and surgeries they undergo in order to 'become' men/women. That a man is a man, whether or not the body reflects that, I can accept. But what perplexes me is that if the personal belief of the transman/woman is that they are of the opposite gender, if the body they were born into does not reflect what they truly are inside, why is it necessary for them to undergo hormonal treatment or GRS to reflect that. If the shell is capable of misrepresenting the person within, then the genitalia or form of the body itself should be as unimportant to the identity of the individual as the size of the earlobes or coloration of the eyes.

If the answer is that it allows them to live their lives more easily as the gender they truly are, then I have to point out that GRS does not make that persons life easier at all, as the very subject of this thread shows. I do not feel that the persecution of transgender people is justified in any way, nor do I think that transgenders should be forced to live a lie or hide their true nature simply to appease society, but if the body is truly unimportant as to deciding the gender of the person, then why should GRS be necessary at all?

I want to pose a question, and I would appreciate it if when you do flame this post, you answer this question is a simple, short, and non-sarcastic manner;

What is the definition of a eunuch?

[Broomstick]

But what perplexes me is that if the personal belief of the transman/woman is that they are of the opposite gender, if the body they were born into does not reflect what they truly are inside, why is it necessary for them to undergo hormonal treatment or GRS to reflect that. If the shell is capable of misrepresenting the person within, then the genitalia or form of the body itself should be as unimportant to the identity of the individual as the size of the earlobes or coloration of the eyes.

Perhaps the body and the genitalia isn't as unimportant as you seem to think?

It's fine to say we are our brains and not our bodies, but the fact is, our bodies really are part of us. Part of the trauma of amputation is the radical change in the body and adjusting to it. Normal adolescents can undergo psychological turmoil as their bodies change during puberty - fortunately, it's usually not too severe and normally resolves in a few years. Our bodies do affect us, and our views of ourselves. People alter their bodies to better reflect what they believe they should be, whether to correct frank deformity or to erase signs of age or simply to obtain a nose they find more attractive. Why would it be puzzling that someone with a female brain in a male body would want to alter her body to better reflect her inner self?

If the answer is that it allows them to live their lives more easily as the gender they truly are, then I have to point out that GRS does not make that persons life easier at all, as the very subject of this thread shows.

Except... the suicide attempts seems to go down drastically after GRS. Which might be an indication that, despite the hardships of transitioning, these people really are better off on some level.

What is the definition of a eunuch?

Someone who identifies as male who has had his testicles removed.

[Serafina]

But what perplexes me is that if the personal belief of the transman/woman is that they are of the opposite gender, if the body they were born into does not reflect what they truly are inside, why is it necessary for them to undergo hormonal treatment or GRS to reflect that. If the shell is capable of misrepresenting the person within, then the genitalia or form of the body itself should be as unimportant to the identity of the individual as the size of the earlobes or coloration of the eyes.

Perhaps more importantly, your body also reflects how other people perceive you. If your body appears male, then most people will treat you as male. But i don't want to be treated as male, because i am not. It's really just that simple.

Well, that part at least is simple. But that's not the only reason to adapt the body, as Broomstick pointed out. Your body really matters for your own well-being and is a large part of your identity. A simple part of that is comparable to any desire to look good - unless you really don't care (rare), then it WILL affect your happiness etc. when you manage to look good. Well, i don't feel good when people thought i looked good as a man (which is why i rarely tried) - but i do when they think i look good as a woman.
Again, it's still more complicated than that, but i have no idea how to explain the rest right now, ill try it later.

Also, keep in mind that the genital surgery is NOT the only procedure. Hormone therapy is far more important, since it affects most of your body - tits, butt, face. Electrolysis (permanent hair removal) is also quite important.
Those procedures are NOT invasive or dangerous (unless done really wrong). And since they are not, changing the body is really not that big a deal - if you actually want it.

So basically, it's "changing the body allows other peopled to see my gender and allows me to feel better, and there is no reason not to do it". And there really is NO reason not to do it.



@SilverWingedSeraph & Marcus Aurelius
Well, sorry, no evidence, so more or less conceded. But if a behavior is actually due to inborn brain differences, then i would call it a mild form of transsexuality, which is what i wanted to say.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I do not view transgender people as abominations, nor do I view them as unnatural. I do however view the process that creates transgender people to be abnormal, and that therefore, transgender people are themselves abnormalities to normal biological development.

Well, that depends on how you are defining normal and abnormal does it not? Under my postulation for its development, it is a byproduct of other processes more than likely. I call it a fuckup, but really it is just at the tail end of some sort of continuous theoretical probability distribution with a complex set of causes...

I have no disagreement with the practice of transgenders living their lives as the gender that they truly are. I do however have some issue with understanding it. I have been discussing this issue with Simon for the last few days, and during the discussion I was told that a transwoman with effeminate mannerisms and personality could exist as a woman because her actions are that expected of a woman. I personally believe that whether or not a trait or action is 'masculine' or 'feminine' it is unimportant when the gender of the person is concerned as I have had several friends who express personality traits and qualities that are 'effeminate' (though several of them are homosexual) but they were all perfectly happy living as males/females. I would like clarification on whether or not transgender people always have personalities traits reflecting their mentality.

Remember. Complex causation. Gender is not an on/off switch. The specific portions of my brain dealing with sexual attraction and mate selection are basically female. Everything else properly differentiated as male. In some cases, you will have an otherwise straight guy with feminine mannerisms, but overall is mostly male in the grey matter. In some cases you get what is basically a lesbian brain inside a man's body etc.

The only issue I have with transgenderism is the treatments and surgeries they undergo in order to 'become' men/women. That a man is a man, whether or not the body reflects that, I can accept. But what perplexes me is that if the personal belief of the transman/woman is that they are of the opposite gender, if the body they were born into does not reflect what they truly are inside, why is it necessary for them to undergo hormonal treatment or GRS to reflect that. If the shell is capable of misrepresenting the person within, then the genitalia or form of the body itself should be as unimportant to the identity of the individual as the size of the earlobes or coloration of the eyes.

It is called Dysphoria. When your mental self image is not the same as what you see in a mirror. Your brain gets up in the morning and expects to look down and see a set of tits. It does not see a set of tits. It becomes confused. Moreover, society treats you as something you are not. You want to do things that are not socially acceptable. You want to have babies but cant etc.

The size of your earlobe or your eye color is not a core identification criteria for your Self. If I were to ask you to describe your self in a list of five words, the fact that you are Male is going to be on that list. Probably #1 on that list, maybe #2. This is true of transgendered people too. Now, imagine that you look in the mirror every day and you see something Wrong. Every. Single. Day.

If the answer is that it allows them to live their lives more easily as the gender they truly are, then I have to point out that GRS does not make that persons life easier at all, as the very subject of this thread shows.

It is actually during all the pre-op stuff where they have the most problems. Their brain is telling them one thing, but society is telling them another. Other people think they are abominations and want to hurt them. Once they transition, they at least dont have the dysphoria.

[spartasman]

Perhaps the body and the genitalia isn't as unimportant as you seem to think?

It's fine to say we are our brains and not our bodies, but the fact is, our bodies really are part of us. Part of the trauma of amputation is the radical change in the body and adjusting to it. Normal adolescents can undergo psychological turmoil as their bodies change during puberty - fortunately, it's usually not too severe and normally resolves in a few years. Our bodies do affect us, and our views of ourselves. People alter their bodies to better reflect what they believe they should be, whether to correct frank deformity or to erase signs of age or simply to obtain a nose they find more attractive. Why would it be puzzling that someone with a female brain in a male body would want to alter her body to better reflect her inner self?

The problem I have is with gender being deemed 're-assignable' by GSR. It just completely conflicts with everything I have ever understood about what gender is. I would like to say that perhaps my opinion on gender has simply been informed by biased misinformation, but basic biological fact is that an organism with testicles capable of producing spermatozoa is Male, and that an organisms with ovaries and a uterus is Female. I am not attempting to offend anyone, but if being born as a man does not make one a man, then what does?

Except... the suicide attempts seems to go down drastically after GRS. Which might be an indication that, despite the hardships of transitioning, these people really are better off on some level.

I concede on this point.

Someone who identifies as male who has had his testicles removed.

Well, I would believe that a woman who has undergone similar trauma to be counted as a eunich as well, but that is irrelevant for the moment.

The response that I was looking for was something along the lines of 'a person who has had their reproductive organs removed', but the more I thought about where I was going to take this the more I discovered that there was really no point to it. Still, if a eunich can only 'identify' as a male without his reproductive organs, then how is a transman to be a man without the ability to produce spermatoza?

Also, keep in mind that the genital surgery is NOT the only procedure. Hormone therapy is far more important, since it affects most of your body - tits, butt, face. Electrolysis (permanent hair removal) is also quite important.
Those procedures are NOT invasive or dangerous (unless done really wrong). And since they are not, changing the body is really not that big a deal - if you actually want it.

The sources I have on hormonal treatments might not be completely reliable, but does hormonal treatment for males not result in erectile dysfunction and infertility? Granted, one undergoing hormonal treatment might not be particularly worried about those sorts of side-effects, but that does seem to counteract the claim that they are completely harmless.

Well, that depends on how you are defining normal and abnormal does it not? Under my postulation for its development, it is a byproduct of other processes more than likely. I call it a fuckup, but really it is just at the tail end of some sort of continuous theoretical probability distribution with a complex set of causes...

Be that as it may, the fact that the processes which results in transgenderism is a "fuckup", does that not make it abnormal? Of course, you could simply argue that every human being is a result of completely different processes during gestation, and that since that is true their is no 'normal' with which to mark transgenderism as 'abnormal'. Then again, the biological imperative of every sexually reproducing species in existence is to propagate the species by seeking those of the opposite gender out, so transgenderism is at the very least 'abnormal' in that criteria. Granted, that arguement applies to homosexuality as well, and to tell you the truth I have a completely separate theory regarding homosexuality that pretty much prevents me from claiming these criteria for abnormality, so the point is essentially moot.

Remember. Complex causation. Gender is not an on/off switch. The specific portions of my brain dealing with sexual attraction and mate selection are basically female. Everything else properly differentiated as male. In some cases, you will have an otherwise straight guy with feminine mannerisms, but overall is mostly male in the grey matter. In some cases you get what is basically a lesbian brain inside a man's body etc.

How is gender not an on/off switch? What you gave me is essentially proof that sexual attraction is not an on/off switch, which I already knew.

It is called Dysphoria. When your mental self image is not the same as what you see in a mirror. Your brain gets up in the morning and expects to look down and see a set of tits. It does not see a set of tits. It becomes confused. Moreover, society treats you as something you are not. You want to do things that are not socially acceptable. You want to have babies but cant etc.

The size of your earlobe or your eye color is not a core identification criteria for your Self. If I were to ask you to describe your self in a list of five words, the fact that you are Male is going to be on that list. Probably #1 on that list, maybe #2. This is true of transgendered people too. Now, imagine that you look in the mirror every day and you see something Wrong. Every. Single. Day.

Once again, I concede.

Also: why the hell would you use a Monty Python skit as evidence? I mean... fuck.

[Broomstick]

Perhaps the body and the genitalia isn't as unimportant as you seem to think?

It's fine to say we are our brains and not our bodies, but the fact is, our bodies really are part of us. Part of the trauma of amputation is the radical change in the body and adjusting to it. Normal adolescents can undergo psychological turmoil as their bodies change during puberty - fortunately, it's usually not too severe and normally resolves in a few years. Our bodies do affect us, and our views of ourselves. People alter their bodies to better reflect what they believe they should be, whether to correct frank deformity or to erase signs of age or simply to obtain a nose they find more attractive. Why would it be puzzling that someone with a female brain in a male body would want to alter her body to better reflect her inner self?

The problem I have is with gender being deemed 're-assignable' by GSR. It just completely conflicts with everything I have ever understood about what gender is. I would like to say that perhaps my opinion on gender has simply been informed by biased misinformation, but basic biological fact is that an organism with testicles capable of producing spermatozoa is Male, and that an organisms with ovaries and a uterus is Female. I am not attempting to offend anyone, but if being born as a man does not make one a man, then what does?

In many cultures simply being born male does not make you a man - to be a man requires various rights of passage, some of them quite strenuous. If you don't pass the various tests then you never become a man in the eyes of the culture, just an old boy.

In other words, it's not just biology, culture plays a role in defining "man" or "woman".

Your definition also leaves out people who are intersex - people who appear biologically female yet have neither uterus nor ovaries, people who appear male yet have no functioning testicles and thus no sperm, people whose chromosomes are XXY, and so on. Not everyone fits neatly into the binary categories. So, while most people neatly line up with [chromosomes]+[genitalia]+[mental identification] all registering the same a few people do not. Yes, they are statistically not the norm, or abnormal.

It is probably not surprising that there is an overlap between those whose biological sex is somehow out of the norm and transexuality, though that overlap is not complete. For example, two of the MtF transsexuals on this board have revealed that they have XXY chromosomes (I'll let them speak up if they feel a need to get personally involved here, rather than naming them again) - such people are "born male", however, they are not quite normal males, and it's more common than people realize, being the most common sex chromosome abnormality and affecting approximately 1 in every 1,000 men. As it happens, the severity varies, with some XXY individuals showing few or no symptoms, but others are more strongly affected. All of them are essential infertile - in other words, although possessing penis and testicles they are not capable of producing viable sperm (it is sometimes possible to isolate viable sperm from them using advanced assisted reproductive techniques, but those are only recently available) and thus fail on one of your criteria for "man". They tend to be tall, they tend to have body fat deposits intermediate between normal male and female, about 10% spontaneously develop sufficient breast tissue to require surgery to restore a male appearance, low testosterone levels are common (which means even those that self-identify as male may require hormone supplements to maintain full health), They aren't normal physically, why would it be puzzling that some of them don't conform to mental norms, either? Most of them identify as male, but they often require treatment, from hormones to surgery to therapy, because their bodies are somewhat feminized and, despite the presence of unambiguous male genitals, they, too, experience gender identity problems until treated. In their case, the treatment is to make them more physically masculine. It's the flip side of people with this syndrome - Klinefelter's - who are MtF transsexuals. In both cases physical features at odds with the mental gender identification causes extreme distress. We can not "fix" the genetic quirk here, the only thing we can do is modify the body to relieve the resulting distress. If you have no qualms about treating such a person to make them more masculine in order to relieve suffering, can you object to making such an individual more feminine in appearance if, in that particular case, doing so would also relieve suffering?

Of course, not all transsexuals have Klinefelter's. I offer it merely as an example of a situation were there is a biological incongruity that is not visible to the naked eye, but can be easily diagnosed by medical technology. There are numerous other developmental abnormality that affects sexual development. For example, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) results in a person with XY chromosomes but cells completely unresponsive to androgens. Such people posses external female genitalia and vagina (though it may be a bit short) and short of a very thorough gynecological exam or chromosome analysis you can not tell them from normal XX females. Oddly enough, despite the Y chromosome they are almost entirely heterosexual females. Or maybe not so oddly - since they can't respond to male hormones their brains default to female, including those parts of their brains involved in sexual identity and attraction. People with Klinefelter's may be more likely to be transsexal than the norm, those with CAIS are not only (apparently) solely cissexual, they are are less likely to be lesbians than XX females. There are also XX males - again, you can't spot those by eyes, they're usually discovered when a man seeks medical help for why he and his partner can't conceive. These are just the gross chromosomal disorders, there are also numerous disorders of sexual development linked to identified malfunctioning genes.

So, with all that - with it being apparent that there are quite a few people out there for whom biological gender is NOT cut and dried - could you consider that for the transsexuals with no apparent or known chromosome or gene anomaly there might still be something that sent them down an atypical development path? There have been some studies that show a physical difference in certain regions of the brain between transsexuals and cissexuals, though the results need to be confirmed as the study uses a very small sample size. Part of the problem is that transsexuals are a small minority in society, and even fewer of them are willing to donate their brain to the cause (of course, the scientists involved wait until said person passes away - they aren't vivisecting anyone!)

If it is conclusively proven that transsexuality results from physical, biological differences from the norm in the brain then it's really a birth defect. Our society usually deems it a good thing when we can alleviate suffering that arises from a birth defect. We can't always make a person normal, but we do our best to maximize their ability to function. That might mean artificial limbs or reconstructive surgery or something else. In the case of transsexuals, the best answer we've come up with so far is treatment to make the affected people appear closer to their mental, self-identifying gender. How successful that treatment is varies, and no one is more aware of the limitations of that treatment that those people undergoing it.

Someone who identifies as male who has had his testicles removed.

Well, I would believe that a woman who has undergone similar trauma to be counted as a eunich as well, but that is irrelevant for the moment.

HUGE psychological difference. It would be a very rare woman who stops feeling like a complete woman after having her ovaries removed. In fact, there are women who actively seek out such an operation, and many who have it done feel great relief. This is in contrast to men who almost (though not quite) universally react very negatively to having their testicles removed, even in cases where doing so is necessary to save or at least prolong their lives. Removal of reproductive organs does not have the same psychological consequences for men and women.

The response that I was looking for was something along the lines of 'a person who has had their reproductive organs removed', but the more I thought about where I was going to take this the more I discovered that there was really no point to it. Still, if a eunich can only 'identify' as a male without his reproductive organs, then how is a transman to be a man without the ability to produce spermatoza?

Is a born man who can't produce spermatoza somehow not a man? Infertility occurs in a lot of people independent of transsexuality.

A eunuch is a man lacking testicles. In this day and age, a man in such a state can receive hormone treatment retain his masculine secondary sexual characteristics and sexual abilities (though, in fact, as long as the penis is intact many eunuchs can still achieve intercourse, though not all). In general, such a state brings great distress to a man, though with time he may adjust to the condition and come to terms with it. On the other hand, a transwoman may actively seek out such an operation, and when complete, she feels relief not distress. This is, needless to say, not in line with anything like a typical male reaction to such a procedure and yet another indication that there really is a very fundamental difference between transwomen and cissexual men.

Also, keep in mind that the genital surgery is NOT the only procedure. Hormone therapy is far more important, since it affects most of your body - tits, butt, face. Electrolysis (permanent hair removal) is also quite important.
Those procedures are NOT invasive or dangerous (unless done really wrong). And since they are not, changing the body is really not that big a deal - if you actually want it.

The sources I have on hormonal treatments might not be completely reliable, but does hormonal treatment for males not result in erectile dysfunction and infertility? Granted, one undergoing hormonal treatment might not be particularly worried about those sorts of side-effects, but that does seem to counteract the claim that they are completely harmless.

The male penis is a funny thing - some men can retain the ability to erect and have intercourse despite a complete lack of testicles and the hormones they produce (although the adrenal glands also produce a small amount of androgens). Some men with completely normal hormone levels are also completely impotent. Oddly enough, even with a malfunctioning penis we still consider them men, so apparently the ability to get a hard-on isn't the determining factor for identifying gender. How much sexual function is retained by a transwoman prior to genital reassignment surgery will vary considerably from one individual to another. In any case, permanent and complete infertility is the inevitable result of a full physical transition (which is why some transwomen save sperm prior to starting their transitions, in order to retain an option of biological parenthood). If you don't want your penis in the first place, is erectile dysfunction really going to be that traumatic? I don't know - but maybe the transwomen on this board will let us know how they feel about it.

Be that as it may, the fact that the processes which results in transgenderism is a "fuckup", does that not make it abnormal?

Well, people who are left-handed are abnormal, too, but we no longer try to force them to be right-handed. Children with cleft lips are abnormal, but we just don't leave them deformed we try to correct the problem, even in the most extreme cases. If someone is born with a disorder that results in a disagreement between mental and physical gender would it not be reasonable to try to improve their situation?

Remember. Complex causation. Gender is not an on/off switch. The specific portions of my brain dealing with sexual attraction and mate selection are basically female. Everything else properly differentiated as male. In some cases, you will have an otherwise straight guy with feminine mannerisms, but overall is mostly male in the grey matter. In some cases you get what is basically a lesbian brain inside a man's body etc.

How is gender not an on/off switch? What you gave me is essentially proof that sexual attraction is not an on/off switch, which I already knew.

Gender is not an on/off switch in cases of abnormal chromosomes, or abnormal genes. Is it that much a stretch to consider that there might be other origins for this disorder that we are not aware of? People born with abnormal and "ambiguous" genitals exist, is it that much a stretch that they might be born with abnormal brains/minds in regards to gender and sexuality?

[Serafina]

The problem I have is with gender being deemed 're-assignable' by GSR. It just completely conflicts with everything I have ever understood about what gender is. I would like to say that perhaps my opinion on gender has simply been informed by biased misinformation, but basic biological fact is that an organism with testicles capable of producing spermatozoa is Male, and that an organisms with ovaries and a uterus is Female. I am not attempting to offend anyone, but if being born as a man does not make one a man, then what does?

*yawn*
Look, it's very simple - it's complicated: biological SEX is already determined by several factors, and gender (being related to the brain) is even more complicated. If you want a good explanation, look in the other half-dozen or so threads we had about this, particularly for explanations by Alyrium.

Your gender identity is NOT "reassigned" with GRS (also called SRS, sex reassignment) - it does NOT change. There is pretty much no way to change your gender identity, since it's hard-wired into your brain. We have tried such thins with psychotherapy, drugs, hormones, raising someone female despite being male (in a case without transsexuality) and so on - there is no way actually change someones gender identity from male to female or the other way round. Which is also your answer - a transwoman might be born with a male body, but NOT with a male gender identity - she is born with a female gender identity just like every other woman.
While this is (as Broomstick pointed out) still subject to study, it explains the existence of transsexuality very well, since psychologists have been unable to identify any psychological cause for it.

The sources I have on hormonal treatments might not be completely reliable, but does hormonal treatment for males not result in erectile dysfunction and infertility? Granted, one undergoing hormonal treatment might not be particularly worried about those sorts of side-effects, but that does seem to counteract the claim that they are completely harmless.

And those effects are reversible. And more importantly, they are not a danger to your actual health.
But why do you focus on that anyway? Are you - again - trying to portray transsexuality as bad ("abomination", "abnormal", comparison to eunuchs) if treated?

[spartasman]

In many cultures simply being born male does not make you a man - to be a man requires various rights of passage, some of them quite strenuous. If you don't pass the various tests then you never become a man in the eyes of the culture, just an old boy.

In other words, it's not just biology, culture plays a role in defining "man" or "woman".

Ok, well, Im pretty sure there is a difference between 'old boy' and 'woman trapped in mans body', and Im also pretty sure that an 'old boy' is not considered a completely different gender. I don't think that you have much of a point here.

If it is conclusively proven that transsexuality results from physical, biological differences from the norm in the brain then it's really a birth defect. Our society usually deems it a good thing when we can alleviate suffering that arises from a birth defect. We can't always make a person normal, but we do our best to maximize their ability to function. That might mean artificial limbs or reconstructive surgery or something else. In the case of transsexuals, the best answer we've come up with so far is treatment to make the affected people appear closer to their mental, self-identifying gender. How successful that treatment is varies, and no one is more aware of the limitations of that treatment that those people undergoing it.

The only problem with that is that with other birth defects, the surgical option is usually applied directly to the deformity. If transgenderism is proven to be a birth defect, then the only 'deformed' aspect of the person is their gender identity. If that is true, then how is it comparable to having a hairlip corrected when the surgery for GRS is applied to the part of the persons body which is not deformed? Again, I am leaving people with chromosomal disorders and genital deformities out here, but in those cases (or at least in those cases where GDD is not also in effect), the problem is physical with the pshycological effects resulting from the existence of noticeable physical deformities.

I am not, NOT, saying that people with GDD should have brain surgery or some other ridiculous thing applied to 'correct' them. What I am trying to say is that I believe GDD to be an exception; an exception to gender, an exception to mental norms, and an exception, if indeed it is one, to birth defects. At this point, I am willing to accept that; that transgenderism is an exception, and is therefore no true threat to the traditional gender identity in society

As for the rest of your post, Broomstick, I found myself unable to object to almost all of the points you made. Also, it was very long, and I had a bit of trouble recalling it while formulating a response, so I'm going to do myself a favor by not asking pointlessly redundent questions.

Your gender identity is NOT "reassigned" with GRS (also called SRS, sex reassignment) - it does NOT change. There is pretty much no way to change your gender identity, since it's hard-wired into your brain. We have tried such thins with psychotherapy, drugs, hormones, raising someone female despite being male (in a case without transsexuality) and so on - there is no way actually change someones gender identity from male to female or the other way round. Which is also your answer - a transwoman might be born with a male body, but NOT with a male gender identity - she is born with a female gender identity just like every other woman.

I did not say that gender 'identity' was being re-assigned, but I get the point of your post.

And those effects are reversible. And more importantly, they are not a danger to your actual health

As I said, my sources are not completely reliable nor did I do much research into it, so the fact that the effects are reversible is no great surprise.

But why do you focus on that anyway? Are you - again - trying to portray transsexuality as bad ("abomination", "abnormal", comparison to eunuchs) if treated?

I suppose I was just talking, but if I was WAS insulting transgenderism (which I was not attempting to do originally), rest assure that there would be no need to ask whether or not I was.

[Serafina]

The only problem with that is that with other birth defects, the surgical option is usually applied directly to the deformity. If transgenderism is proven to be a birth defect, then the only 'deformed' aspect of the person is their gender identity. If that is true, then how is it comparable to having a hairlip corrected when the surgery for GRS is applied to the part of the persons body which is not deformed? Again, I am leaving people with chromosomal disorders and genital deformities out here, but in those cases (or at least in those cases where GDD is not also in effect), the problem is physical with the pshycological effects resulting from the existence of noticeable physical deformities.

And the problem is physical with transsexuality as well. My brain is perfectly fine. So is my body in a medical sense - but while i don't have a problem with my female identity, i DO have a problem with my male body.

Furthermore, the body is quite easy to fix. But there is absolutely no way to "fix" the brain (again, it's not broken) - and even if there was, it would just destroy a large part of my personality (since someones gender identity is a fundamental part of someones personality).

I suppose I was just talking, but if I was WAS insulting transgenderism (which I was not attempting to do originally), rest assure that there would be no need to ask whether or not I was.

Look, i don't complain about insults. I suppose i could be insulted, but i am not.

The problem is that you are constantly talking as if you are utterly unable to understand transsexuality (and transgender) at all and can only try to comprehend it in terms like "disorder", "deformity", "abomination" and so on.
Which is why i am not insulted, because it seems that you are just unable to comprehend - but trying to.



Anyway, let me ask you a question:
What does make someone a man or a woman?

It's not chromosomes - you can be physically male with XX chromosomes and physically female with XY chromosomes.
It's not sexual organs - there is a huge variety of possible intersex-differences. Also, if your dick is cut off, you do not turn into a woman just because that happened.
And it's none of the other physical differences - those can be induced in a person without changing someones gender at all.

It's really quite simple: All of the above are part of someones sex. They are not stand-alone defining criteria for it, but they are part of it.
But NONE of the above has anything to do with someones gender. The only thing that matters for that is someones brain.
Now, gender is a very wide term. It includes things that you are born with - such as your sexual orientation. More relevant is that you are also born with a basic gender identity. That basic identity will not change over the course of your life (there is pretty conclusive evidence for that).
So if you are born with a female gender identity, that won't change no matter how you are raised, no matter what hormones you produce during puberty and so on. It's an essential part of your personality - most people just don't notice because there is never any conflict due to it. There IS such a conflict with transsexual people - your body does not match your personality. But ultimately, your personality is FAR more important than your body - if you are to defining who you are, your personality is 90% of that and the body 10% (or something like that).

Now, where am i going with this? There:

At this point, I am willing to accept that; that transsexuality (altered) is an exception, and is therefore no true threat to the traditional gender identity in society

Because this is not correct. My gender identity is NORMAL. It's female, and that's that.
But what it DOES threaten is the traditional definition of gender identity - which happens to be incredibly simple and defined almost purely by physical traits. Because it's so simplistic, it's simply wrong. Gender identity is not defined by such labels, it's a matter of self-definition. Not one you can choose at will, but you are the only person who can actually see directly what your gender identity is (unless you are lying to yourself). Other people might label you correctly, but that's not the definition of gender identity.

This also ties into transgenderism (which is what you wrote originally in that quote). Ultimately, it's about who you are, which is something you should know better than anyone else.

But what's BAD about "threatening traditional gender identity in society"? Does it have any inherent value because it's traditional? Does it have value because it carries greater utility - because society works better with "traditional gender identity"? Or do you think that "traditional gender identity" is the correct one for some other reason?
Transgender-concepts do not pose any threats to society. They do not make individuals (inherently) unable to function in it. They do not put any (unbearable) burden on society *. They do not destroy any of it's vital structures. They are just about some people living like they want to. And that is a benefit to any free society.


Now, i have the feeling (based on the words you are using) that YOU feel threatened by transgender-concepts. That's not an allegation - i do not condemn anyone for subconscious feelings, only for actions (and you've done nothing wrong there). I simply want to know whether i might be correct - and if i am, why you feel threatened by it, so that i can try to defuse that threat.


* Treating a transsexual person does cost money, but as explained above it's a relatively small amount compared to other life-destroying diseases that are treated, and the total amount of transsexual people is small enough that it's hardly noticeable for society as a whole.
Transgender doesn't cost society anything at all, other than discarding outdated notions.

[Broomstick]

If it is conclusively proven that transsexuality results from physical, biological differences from the norm in the brain then it's really a birth defect. Our society usually deems it a good thing when we can alleviate suffering that arises from a birth defect. We can't always make a person normal, but we do our best to maximize their ability to function. That might mean artificial limbs or reconstructive surgery or something else. In the case of transsexuals, the best answer we've come up with so far is treatment to make the affected people appear closer to their mental, self-identifying gender. How successful that treatment is varies, and no one is more aware of the limitations of that treatment that those people undergoing it.

The only problem with that is that with other birth defects, the surgical option is usually applied directly to the deformity. If transgenderism is proven to be a birth defect, then the only 'deformed' aspect of the person is their gender identity. If that is true, then how is it comparable to having a hairlip corrected when the surgery for GRS is applied to the part of the persons body which is not deformed?

If "hairlip", or rather, cleft palate, is severe enough correction might call for use of healthy tissue from elsewhere in the body to reconstruct a usable jaw and replace missing facial bones and tissue. That would be a case of sacrificing healthy tissue to alter a child's appearance to allow better functioning. In such a severe case the child would also required dentures due to lack of teeth. The result would be a more normal appearance and function, but with such "unnatual" features as having to remove teeth for cleaning (those dentures, you know). Facial deformities are one area where society tolerates inducing scars on healthy parts of the body to improve the appearance and not just function of the face. As another example, a child born without a thumb might have a perfectly healthy toe removed and transplanted to the hand, making a sub-optimal but functional thumb and leaving a deformed foot.

Of course, such extremes of clefting and other birth defects are quite rare. So are transsexuals. In both cases the end result is not perfect but outcomes for the person in question are definitely improved over doing nothing and telling the person to just live with the problem.

[Serafina]

I'm not sure whether this warrants a new thread (it fits with the original topic), so i'll just post it here:

Estimated prevalence of MtF-transsexuality: 1:500 That would mean that transsexuality is actually quite prevalent, more so than, say, muliple sclerosis.
Basically, this article analyzes the prevalence of transwomen by looking at the number of sex reassignment surgeries. This is a pretty safe way to determine a lower limit for the number of transwomen - someone who undergoes SRS is practically guaranteed to be transsexual.
While the exact numbers might be off (due to foreign patients, the number of non-SRS transsexuals etc.), it certainly gives us a rough order of magnitude estimate. Using the amount of operations alone, it's clear that the official number for the prevalence of transsexuality are way off.

Now, that's not a scientific paper, but the numbers seem to work out pretty well, and it's well-known that the published numbers are off by a large margin.

I will also say that they match very well with my real-life experience. I personally know (have seen in real life) 10 transwomen in my city (Munich) and about my age (+/-5 years). That doesn't include any post-SRS transwomen, it doesn't include anyone above the age of 30 or below the age of 18, and it doesn't include anyone whom i have simply not met yet. Yet it already works out to 1 out of 100000 inhabitants (disregarding age and biological sex). While it roughly fits the official number when we adjust for sex and being an adult (which would include about 1/3th of the population), that number is very inaccurate since it still doesn't include anyone older than 30/younger than 18 or anyone living stealth or anyone i haven't met. The actual number MUST be higher, even if we assume that a large number of transwomen move to larger cities.
I must admit that the 1:500 number seems a bit high to me, but the math and method seem to work out pretty well.

[HMS Sophia]

Ok, while this thread went off on an... argument against spartasman, I thought I would try to bring it back too the OP. I hope that's okay

While that figure for the suicide rate is horrifying and disgusting, as are the other statistics in the first few lines, are they really that surprising?
That may sound like I am being unsympathetic, but consider:
I get depressed most days, or at least depressing thoughts, because of mirrors mainly (sounds amusing, no?)
I can't go out where I live in even slightly feminised masculine clothes (hope that makes sense), because I worry that some one will say something. I'm scared enough of violence in my area without giving them what they think is reason.
And I don't believe it's just me that thinks like that? Hell, I'll say I am pretty damn sure I am not the only one. I just wondered what other people thought of the OP article, other than spartasman (who seems to have... apologised? rescinded his views? not sure...).

[Serafina]

Ok, while this thread went off on an... argument against spartasman, I thought I would try to bring it back too the OP. I hope that's okay

While that figure for the suicide rate is horrifying and disgusting, as are the other statistics in the first few lines, are they really that surprising?
That may sound like I am being unsympathetic, but consider:
I get depressed most days, or at least depressing thoughts, because of mirrors mainly (sounds amusing, no?)
I can't go out where I live in even slightly feminised masculine clothes (hope that makes sense), because I worry that some one will say something. I'm scared enough of violence in my area without giving them what they think is reason.
And I don't believe it's just me that thinks like that? Hell, I'll say I am pretty damn sure I am not the only one. I just wondered what other people thought of the OP article, other than spartasman (who seems to have... apologised? rescinded his views? not sure...).

Well, no, they are not surprising at all (which has already been said) - it has been known to anyone with knowledge on the subject for years.

As you said, social issues are a large part of the problem, but as i said before, the difficulty of treatment in the USA is another problem. I had it very easy on both sides myself - but without our health care system paying for my transition, i would be stuck in my progress about 1-1.5 years ago (my therapist helped me with the social issues of transition, and i am on hormones for almost a year now). And i am certainly feeling way more comfortable with myself now than i did a year ago. Even worse, if i had to pay the transition myself, then that would be considerable additional weight on my shoulders.

Again, the suicide risk is largely preventable. I think that even in a very open, supporting society it might not vanish completely - transsexual people might still try to hide their true identity from themselves even if they would be supported by others if they told them. But it would certainly be much, much lower than it is right now.
Which is also why i would like to see studies from western european countries regarding this subject - the suicide risk should be substantially lower, and it appears to be that way.

[HMS Sophia]

Well, no, they are not surprising at all (which has already been said) - it has been known to anyone with knowledge on the subject for years.

Whoops. Do apologise, must have missed that

As you said, social issues are a large part of the problem, but as i said before, the difficulty of treatment in the USA is another problem. I had it very easy on both sides myself - but without our health care system paying for my transition, i would be stuck in my progress about 1-1.5 years ago (my therapist helped me with the social issues of transition, and i am on hormones for almost a year now). And i am certainly feeling way more comfortable with myself now than i did a year ago. Even worse, if i had to pay the transition myself, then that would be considerable additional weight on my shoulders.

I can't say I know what it's like in the US, but I know that over here, even though we have the NHS, a lot of people choose to to get the treatment privately (or at least I'm pretty sure of that, correct me if I am wrong). I have to say I'm not sure I would trust them, at least in terms of the SRS.

Which is also why i would like to see studies from western european countries regarding this subject - the suicide risk should be substantially lower, and it appears to be that way.

By western countries, do you mean continental Europe, or do you include Britain? Because while I suppose the rate would be lower here, I'm not entirely sure how substantial the difference would be considering what I know of culture and society here. Hell, I spent most of my childhood in Brighton (colloquially known as the 'Gay Capital'), and still there was a certain... stigma I suppose? Other people's reactions were just as unfriendly there as anywhere else in this country.

[Serafina]

Oh, so you are a brit then

Well, i have little information or experience with the NHS regardin transsexuality, so no comment there - however, i think one of the reasons why many chose private treatment is that it can be faster and easier. It also happens over here - a friend of mine pays for her SRS privately, simply because it's easier for her (and she has the money to do so).

I do include Britain when alking about Europe, especially since the NHS is paying, which just doesn't happen in the USA. Howeve,r i must say that there are apparently some anti-trans sentiments, given that a current (2010) law basically allows transwomen to be banned from sensitive women-only spaces or employments (think of womens shelters etc.) even after full transition.
However, AFAIK, it's still much better than the rural parts of the USA.

[HMS Sophia]

Oh, so you are a brit then

No... why would you think such a thing

Well, i have little information or experience with the NHS regardin transsexuality, so no comment there - however, i think one of the reasons why many chose private treatment is that it can be faster and easier. It also happens over here - a friend of mine pays for her SRS privately, simply because it's easier for her (and she has the money to do so).

Ah well that makes a lot of sense. I suppose the faster the better really (sometimes), and if you can find the money, then more luck to that person.

I do include Britain when talking about Europe, especially since the NHS is paying, which just doesn't happen in the USA. However, i must say that there are apparently some anti-trans sentiments, given that a current (2010) law basically allows transwomen to be banned from sensitive women-only spaces or employments (think of womens shelters etc.) even after full transition.

Well yes, the fact that it can be paid for probably does make it better here, as someone could just get it sorted without much hassle. As for the second point, where the fuck is this! If this is Britain, then great, I have another thing to be fucking angry about (others include: the fact I will never be allowed to give blood, Student fee rises, and a lack of competent governance [/rant]). I mean I can almost see the sentiment if a person was living as a women/pre-op, (I said almost, and I certainly do not agree), but when a person is a woman in all aspects of such, then... why not? It makes no sense...

However, AFAIK, it's still much better than the rural parts of the USA.

No disagreement there I still can't believe people get away with murder occasionally on the grounds of... is it called trans rage or something?

[Serafina]

Well yes, the fact that it can be paid for probably does make it better here, as someone could just get it sorted without much hassle.

It's also often about getting it sorted out AT ALL. In my case, if my insurance would not pay for it, then i could barely afford HRT - and that would already require luck.

As for the second point, where the fuck is this! If this is Britain, then great, I have another thing to be fucking angry about (others include: the fact I will never be allowed to give blood, Student fee rises, and a lack of competent governance [/rant]). I mean I can almost see the sentiment if a person was living as a women/pre-op, (I said almost, and I certainly do not agree), but when a person is a woman in all aspects of such, then... why not? It makes no sense...

Yes, it's in Britain.
I am talking about the Equality Act 2010.
Basically, it states that it's forbidden to discriminate based on gender identity - but then goes ahead and makes exceptions from that rule for transsexual people. Basically, it's specifically allowed to set up any room, group etc. as "cis-women only" if there is even the flimsiest of reasons, supposedly to protect "real women". How that get's applied has yet to be seen.

Note that this is a very typcial for anti-trans sentiment found in some extreme feminists. Given that that act was passed with little discussion, it's likely that someone snuck that change in there. It even makes some sense if you are talking about pre-OP transwomen (as you noted), which is probably a reason why no one objected to it.
However, i would take the fact that there was so little discussion as hope that this change might be reversed - it might have just slipped there without most people realizing it's effects, so it doesn't necessarily represent widespread anti-trans sentiment.

P.S: I have sent you a private message, in case you didn't notice.

[HMS Sophia]

Yes, it's in Britain.
I am talking about the Equality Act 2010.
Basically, it states that it's forbidden to discriminate based on gender identity - but then goes ahead and makes exceptions from that rule for transsexual people. Basically, it's specifically allowed to set up any room, group etc. as "cis-women only" if there is even the flimsiest of reasons, supposedly to protect "real women". How that get's applied has yet to be seen.

Yes I remember this now. And I remember being quite cross when I heard about it as well

Note that this is a very typcial for anti-trans sentiment found in some extreme feminists. Given that that act was passed with little discussion, it's likely that someone snuck that change in there. It even makes some sense if you are talking about pre-OP transwomen (as you noted), which is probably a reason why no one objected to it.

Ah yes, the old "they're not real women and might rape us as they still have a man's rapist mind in there" argument...

And no I didn't notice the PM I'll go answer that now...

[Serafina]

Addendum: Here is a good article about the problems with the "Equality" Act.
Oh, and it's sickening to note that the examples of the act differ between "women" and "transsexual" - not even "women! (as in ciswomen) and "transwomen". But as the article says, it's also evident that the writers didn't have much of a clue about transsexual people (who the hell needs signficant time off from work in order to take hormones?)

[HMS Sophia]

Oh I remember this one properly now...
I believe most people accepted it was a travesty of a piece and realised its much more likely you will end up discriminating against the LGB society, rather than T's (as it says in those two rather amusing articles).
However, I have to say I dispute their point about the military.

If someone is Trans and can pass the physical tests, why on earth would anyone give a rats arse if you’re Trans or not?

In this country at least, a ciswoman cannot enter the infantry, or any post where they expected to go into combat (though women can find themselves in combat situations of course). If, therefore, a trans woman was recognised as female, it does not matter whether they can pass the physical tests or not, they cannot enter the infantry.
However the fact that they clearly differentiate between the two, making it quite clear that a transwoman is a very different case, is... insulting?

In the future, I might use this to get time of work.
"Look! You can't fire me! I was busy taking hormones!..."
Insanity, thats what this is

[spartasman]

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been moving into a new place and I have not had time.

It's not chromosomes - you can be physically male with XX chromosomes and physically female with XY chromosomes.

It would appear to me that someone with XY chromosomes (or furthermore with XXY chromosomes) with XX characteristics would be considered abnormal exception, and that the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule.

It's not sexual organs - there is a huge variety of possible intersex-differences. Also, if your dick is cut off, you do not turn into a woman just because that happened.

Once again, the existence of malformed genitalia is an exception. However, you do have a point here that I will not deny, in that the health and/or appearance of a persons genitalia does not affect their sex, only that it (possibly) denies them from fulfilling their role as a member of it.

And it's none of the other physical differences - those can be induced in a person without changing someones gender at all.

agreeable, but I am going to assume that you mean 'sex' when you say 'gender'; if I am wrong in this assumption, please inform me.

It's really quite simple: All of the above are part of someones sex. They are not stand-alone defining criteria for it, but they are part of it.
But NONE of the above has anything to do with someones gender. The only thing that matters for that is someones brain.
Now, gender is a very wide term. It includes things that you are born with - such as your sexual orientation. More relevant is that you are also born with a basic gender identity. That basic identity will not change over the course of your life (there is pretty conclusive evidence for that).
So if you are born with a female gender identity, that won't change no matter how you are raised, no matter what hormones you produce during puberty and so on. It's an essential part of your personality - most people just don't notice because there is never any conflict due to it. There IS such a conflict with transsexual people - your body does not match your personality. But ultimately, your personality is FAR more important than your body - if you are to defining who you are, your personality is 90% of that and the body 10%

As I had stated before, I have no qualms with the fact that a person can be born with conflicting gender identity and sex. However, if defining who you are is 90% personality and 10% body, why again is surgery necessary?

Because it's so simplistic, it's simply wrong.

I thought to say something relating to Occums Razor, but decided against it. I fail to see how a definition of gender identity which has been homogeneous amongst all human cultures and societies since the dawn of man, one that is also discernible from the interactions of even the lowliest of sapient animals, can simply be deemed wrong because there is an exception to the rule. I would furthermore put forth that it is and exception which proves the rule, in that the only reason gender identity is conflicting in the first place is due to a fault in the developmental process.

Gender identity is not defined by such labels, it's a matter of self-definition. Not one you can choose at will, but you are the only person who can actually see directly what your gender identity is (unless you are lying to yourself). Other people might label you correctly, but that's not the definition of gender identity.

You seem to be conflicting there a little bit by saying its a matter of self-definition, and then proceeding to say that no one can choose it at will. If you meant to say that it is a matter of self-realization, as the rest of your post would seem to indicated, then I agree.

But what's BAD about "threatening traditional gender identity in society"? Does it have any inherent value because it's traditional? Does it have value because it carries greater utility - because society works better with "traditional gender identity"? Or do you think that "traditional gender identity" is the correct one for some other reason?
Transgender-concepts do not pose any threats to society. They do not make individuals (inherently) unable to function in it. They do not put any (unbearable) burden on society *. They do not destroy any of it's vital structures. They are just about some people living like they want to. And that is a benefit to any free society.

What is GOOD about threatening it? I understand that you have to be your own advocate, and that for you, and other transgenders, the traditional definition of gender identity leaves you 'out of the circle' so to speak. But it works for most all of humanity, so I would judge that that is its inherent value.

Transgender concepts, or I suppose I should say the concept of Transgenderism does not directly threaten society, or gender identity; it conflicts with them. They are the exception, perhaps poorly understood exceptions, but exceptions to a rule that is very, VERY important for defining for most people what they are. That is the source, I believe, of the violence and hatred that most people hold towards transgenderism.

Now, i have the feeling (based on the words you are using) that YOU feel threatened by transgender-concepts. That's not an allegation - i do not condemn anyone for subconscious feelings, only for actions (and you've done nothing wrong there). I simply want to know whether i might be correct - and if i am, why you feel threatened by it, so that i can try to defuse that threat.

I suppose I did feel threatened, but I have now come to the conclusion that transgenderism is a harmless exception to the norm, and is therefore not to be hated.

If "hairlip", or rather, cleft palate, is severe enough correction might call for use of healthy tissue from elsewhere in the body to reconstruct a usable jaw and replace missing facial bones and tissue. That would be a case of sacrificing healthy tissue to alter a child's appearance to allow better functioning. In such a severe case the child would also required dentures due to lack of teeth. The result would be a more normal appearance and function, but with such "unnatual" features as having to remove teeth for cleaning (those dentures, you know). Facial deformities are one area where society tolerates inducing scars on healthy parts of the body to improve the appearance and not just function of the face. As another example, a child born without a thumb might have a perfectly healthy toe removed and transplanted to the hand, making a sub-optimal but functional thumb and leaving a deformed foot.

Of course, such extremes of clefting and other birth defects are quite rare. So are transsexuals. In both cases the end result is not perfect but outcomes for the person in question are definitely improved over doing nothing and telling the person to just live with the problem.

Ok, I am missing something here, because I see no relevance here at all with what I had said.

[Broomstick]

It's not chromosomes - you can be physically male with XX chromosomes and physically female with XY chromosomes.

It would appear to me that someone with XY chromosomes (or furthermore with XXY chromosomes) with XX characteristics would be considered abnormal exception, and that the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule.

Well, yes, such people are statistically abnormal, but given the high population of humans on earth a very rare disorder can add up to a lot of people in raw numbers. Much of medicine deals with statistically abnormal people and how to treat them.

I thought to say something relating to Occums Razor, but decided against it. I fail to see how a definition of gender identity which has been homogeneous amongst all human cultures and societies since the dawn of man, one that is also discernible from the interactions of even the lowliest of sapient animals, can simply be deemed wrong because there is an exception to the rule. I would furthermore put forth that it is and exception which proves the rule, in that the only reason gender identity is conflicting in the first place is due to a fault in the developmental process.

Men dressing/living as women, and women dressing/living as men, have been known throughout history. While it's likely not all of those people were transsexuals quite a few of them might be. In some cases cross dressers were vilified or even killed. In others, they had ceremonial roles, like in some tribal societies. So saying that "gender identity" has been homogeneous "amongst all human cultures and societies" is debatable.

If "hairlip", or rather, cleft palate, is severe enough correction might call for use of healthy tissue from elsewhere in the body to reconstruct a usable jaw and replace missing facial bones and tissue. That would be a case of sacrificing healthy tissue to alter a child's appearance to allow better functioning. In such a severe case the child would also required dentures due to lack of teeth. The result would be a more normal appearance and function, but with such "unnatural" features as having to remove teeth for cleaning (those dentures, you know). Facial deformities are one area where society tolerates inducing scars on healthy parts of the body to improve the appearance and not just function of the face. As another example, a child born without a thumb might have a perfectly healthy toe removed and transplanted to the hand, making a sub-optimal but functional thumb and leaving a deformed foot.

Of course, such extremes of clefting and other birth defects are quite rare. So are transsexuals. In both cases the end result is not perfect but outcomes for the person in question are definitely improved over doing nothing and telling the person to just live with the problem.

Ok, I am missing something here, because I see no relevance here at all with what I had said.

It's a response to this:

The only problem with that is that with other birth defects, the surgical option is usually applied directly to the deformity. If transgenderism is proven to be a birth defect, then the only 'deformed' aspect of the person is their gender identity. If that is true, then how is it comparable to having a hairlip corrected when the surgery for GRS is applied to the part of the persons body which is not deformed?

Surgery for transsexuals is not random hacking and slashing at the body. It is done to very specific parts with the aim of improving the patient's functioning and life. If the outcome is less debility and death then the procedure is considered a success. This doesn't mean the future won't hold better treatments, just that this one is the best we have right now, and it's justified if we can show that the patients are better off with these procedures than without.

[madd0ct0r]

Men dressing/living as women, and women dressing/living as men, have been known throughout history. ... So saying that "gender identity" has been homogeneous "amongst all human cultures and societies" is debatable.

There's plenty of common ideas thrown around for this point.

The ancient Greeks separated sexual partners under Men and Not-men (women, children, goats ect)

The Hindu Caste system has a specific subset for children born hermaphrodite, so that they can grow up amongst people similar to them. (In a pretty judged and scraping a living way admittedly)

I think Broomstick made the point in a previous thread that in Ancient Japan, the social marks of a true man (as well as the biological) were having long hair, wearing a dress, writing poetry, appreciating tea and killing people with swords. (the last is very common, and generally is how the 'true-men' get to dictate what makes a 'true-man)

What I am fumbling towards here is your question that if 'true' gender is 90% brain pattern, 10% body signals, then why get the surgery?

Maybe because a person's feeling of happiness is significantly affected by how other people act towards them?

If I 'feel' I am actually female, then somebody politely treating me as a man will make me less happy then somebody politely treating me as a woman. Over time, this feeling of 'something being wrong' builds up.

I'm not a transexual, but I am an extremely noticeable immigrant at the moment. A tall, pretty white guy in Vietnam. About the only place I can go with my vietnamese wife of 8 years without drawing comments and occasional hostility is an expat bar.

Ignoring the hostility, even in places where the treatment is perfectly polite we are still being treated as something abnormal. There are incorrect assumptions made about the equality of our relationship and of our status in society.
A marriage is 90% compatibility, 10% social acceptance, so why do we feel the need for social acceptance so much?

Because the other 90% is already there.

[Revy]

Well I only really read the OP here, but as someone who is transgender I can't say it surprises me very much. I live in the UK though, so things are a bit different here. The NHS will help out with things like hormone treatments and medical checkups, assuming of course you aren't stuck in the arse end of the country with only one bigoted bitch of a doctor who shrugs and smiles at the suggestion that you might kill yourself.

Oh, and the hate is just fucking fantastic. My own sister threatened to hire people to kill me if I didn't move as far away from her as possible. Considering that she married into a rich snob-tastic family, I didn't want to take the chance that she was bluffing and I moved. At least it lets you know who your real friends are. Soon as I came out none of my friends wanted to have anything to do with me anymore.

Funny thing is, compared to the rest of my family I think I'm not half bad. I don't have a gambling problem like my first sister, I'm not an alcaholic junkie like my second sister, I'm not an abusive bastard who cheated on my wife after beating the crap out of her like my dad, I'm not friends with a pedophile and a rapist like my step dad. Hell, I was the only person in a crowd who stopped to help an old lady who'd dropped the bags she was trying to carry onto the ferry. Apparently the only thing I have against me is being transgender, but it makes me far worse than any of my fucked up family.

Well I'll be damned if I'm going to kill myself. I'm going to try my best to become as successful as possible so I can give them all the finger and enjoy life as much as I can. Way I see it, it could be a lot worse. I'm not paralysed, or blind, I don't have cancer or any other kind of terminal illness. Hell if you look at it that way, I'm practically lucky.

[Simon_Jester]

It would appear to me that someone with XY chromosomes (or furthermore with XXY chromosomes) with XX characteristics would be considered abnormal exception, and that the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule.

Why should the rule be applied tyrannically to the exceptions? Why not simply write an extra paragraph into the rules?

Society is what the people who live in it decide it should be; the past few hundred years have proven that beyond any possible doubt, I'd say. "The Rules" for any given thing, including gender roles, are not dictates from on high where tinkering with them at the edges leads to the fall of civilization. I mean hell, we used to believe in the divine right of kings...

So what's the point of deliberately preserving the rules in a form that punishes unusual cases simply for being unusual cases, given that they're not hurting anyone?

And it's none of the other physical differences - those can be induced in a person without changing someones gender at all.

agreeable, but I am going to assume that you mean 'sex' when you say 'gender'; if I am wrong in this assumption, please inform me.

I'm guessing that she means "gender." You can make a woman grow a beard, for instance; that won't make her stop thinking of herself as a woman if she thought that way before. She won't automatically try to adopt a male gender role, or think the way male-gendered people do, simply because her facial hair just went berserk on her. The woman may be utterly miserable because she is now a bearded lady, but she still is a lady.

Which is kind of her point. Your internal assessment of whether you are a man or a woman is not caused by the physical sex characteristics your body has, whether those characteristics are primary or secondary. It's just very strongly correlated with them.

As I had stated before, I have no qualms with the fact that a person can be born with conflicting gender identity and sex. However, if defining who you are is 90% personality and 10% body, why again is surgery necessary?

Because you don't want to be a hermit, and would like other people to treat you the way you want to be treated?

If you suddenly sprouted breasts one morning, and people started treating you like a big ugly woman instead of a man, looking at you funny, ostracizing you... you wouldn't care for that. Getting rid of the unwanted breasts would suddenly become very tempting, I'd think. Because even if they don't affect your identity as a man, they affect the way others behave.

I thought to say something relating to Occums Razor, but decided against it. I fail to see how a definition of gender identity which has been homogeneous amongst all human cultures and societies since the dawn of man, one that is also discernible from the interactions of even the lowliest of sapient animals, can simply be deemed wrong because there is an exception to the rule. I would furthermore put forth that it is and exception which proves the rule, in that the only reason gender identity is conflicting in the first place is due to a fault in the developmental process.

As others point out, gender identity really isn't as uniform as you think; the customs of our tribe are not the laws of the universe, and the past was in many ways a very different country.

And if you talk about the interactions of animals, it gets even worse. Go look at a tribe of hyenas and tell me gender roles exist in clearly identifiable form across species line; I'll laugh my head off.

But what's BAD about "threatening traditional gender identity in society"? Does it have any inherent value because it's traditional? Does it have value because it carries greater utility - because society works better with "traditional gender identity"? Or do you think that "traditional gender identity" is the correct one for some other reason?...

What is GOOD about threatening it? I understand that you have to be your own advocate, and that for you, and other transgenders, the traditional definition of gender identity leaves you 'out of the circle' so to speak. But it works for most all of humanity, so I would judge that that is its inherent value.

Transgender concepts, or I suppose I should say the concept of Transgenderism does not directly threaten society, or gender identity; it conflicts with them. They are the exception, perhaps poorly understood exceptions, but exceptions to a rule that is very, VERY important for defining for most people what they are. That is the source, I believe, of the violence and hatred that most people hold towards transgenderism.

But why should that kind of violence and hatred be 'authorized,' humored, and in practice tolerated by appeal to tradition? The idea that we can write off the fate of a group of unlucky people because the conditions of their existence make life unbearable to them under current tradition has... very bad precedents, I'd say.

You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to defend a tradition from people who are not attacking it by saying (or even implying) that the tradition is the only right way to live and that there must be something wrong with these people for existing outside it.