107 replies to this topic

[DashSim]

Proper definitions are necessary because if we just used what we felt was right, how could we communicate with each other in any meaningful or effective way? There is specific meaning and nuance attached to these words, and to discuss these issues with any sort of depth, it's vital to understand them.

I try to use the most accurate words possible to convey whatever meaning I intend, in any situation. I consider it important.

[Sheik]

I find it irriating that whenever trans-whatever is discussed homo- and bisexuality are brought up by someone, eventhough gender and sexual orientation are two seperate topics. It's this attitide of throwing all of the minorities together which bugs me to no ends. I wanted to mention that forever and now I did.
Edit: Just like someone has to bring his religion into the discussion. Can't we stick to one topic at one time for once?

Edited by Yoshimi, 24 December 2011 - 02:01 PM.

[Lemon]

Here's a thought; why do people who "want" to be a girl associate with girly things like the color pink and princesses?

Like, yes, those are "girl" attributes and desires, but it's not like that is hardwired into our system in anyway. It's simply a cultural construct. I wonder how much of their transgender desires stem from putting themselves within the context of the society rather than a actual desire to have a vagina and be a woman.

I suppose Barbie and pink put more emphasis on beauty perhaps? So in that case, if we had toys that emphasized beauty or more materialistic pleasures that were "socially acceptable" for boys to play with, would these people still want to be transgendered?

[Fabbrizio]

Here's a thought; why do people who "want" to be a girl associate with girly things like the color pink and princesses?

Like, yes, those are "girl" attributes and desires, but it's not like that is hardwired into our system in anyway. It's simply a cultural construct. I wonder how much of their transgender desires stem from putting themselves within the context of the society rather than a actual desire to have a vagina and be a woman.

I suppose Barbie and pink put more emphasis on beauty perhaps? So in that case, if we had toys that emphasized beauty or more materialistic pleasures that were "socially acceptable" for boys to play with, would these people still want to be transgendered?

This opens up a whole new can of worms which I am more than happy to discuss.

I would love it if it were to become socially acceptable for boys to play with toys based more around materialistic concepts, and I think (I hate to drag this into everything, but it IS relevant) the increased sale of MLP toys among straight males is a sign that it IS possible, but I think, as a society, we'd have to "grow up" so to speak. Since choice in activity is, by definition, a personal choice, you can't really put down any laws saying "you have to show these people respect". Guys who choose to like "girly" things become ostracized and alienated as though they're pedophiles. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in the US, people are (for the most-part) afraid to step outside their stereotypical gender roles.

Now here's my theory - there are two kinds of people. The kind that cares what society thinks, and the kind that doesn't. People who don't care what society thinks of them will be how they want to be, and it's all cool. A large portion of the transgender community would be in this category. But then you've got the people who DO care. Among those who care, there are two sub-categories - the ones who will fall in and conform, and the ones who will push back. Many of the people who chose to push back will find themselves fitting more of the transgender stereotypes. Meanwhile, the ones who fall in and conform will become caricatures of themselves, and might even ridicule those who push back despite potentially being, at the heart of it all, fundamentally the same as those they ridicule.

Just a thought.

Edited by DavidReinold, 25 December 2011 - 02:28 PM.

[Beefster]

I still can't help but wonder if Nicole/Wyatt has a male spirit or a female spirit. It's one of those things that has been bugging me lately. I suppose I'll just have to let that go, since I can never know for sure.

But still, despite that, some cultural norms are ridiculous.

I'm in a weird position, because I like rainbows, but I'm not gay. So whenever I go out wearing a rainbow shirt, I have to put "Not gay." But I'm not against gays, so under that I'll have to put "... but supportive." It's weird how one group of people took refracted light. That's very greedy, gays.

I also find tomboyish girls attractive- cargo pants, a normal T-shirt, a sense of adventure, etc... But I also want a girl who likes MLP:FiM, who wears flower hair bands. I honestly hate the preppy look. (And it doesn't help that 95% of all Mormon girls are preppy) I can't stand skinny jeans or those stretchy pants that look more like leggings than pants. Seriously, ladies. Just wear some normal pants or a skirt!

It's funny. I know more about ponies and clothing than sports and cars. But I'm not gay. It's sad that as a white male, I'm expected to know lots about cars and sports, but I don't particularly care for either. As an adult, people think I should stop watching cartoons. Pfft. Blasphemy. I prefer cartoons over live action half of the time.

I could go on. I don't really care for cultural norms. I have my standards, which are separated from society.

[Fabbrizio]

I don't believe in male and female souls - honestly, I think all souls are fundamentally cut from the same mold, and that people can tell themselves that they are whatever they want to be. Me, personally...I know I'm straight, but if I told myself I was gay, I could go gay. Probably. I already feel like sometimes I'd do better as a girl - feminism IS one of my core principles - and if not for the fact that I'm insanely tall and have already lost any semblance of a girlish figure, I'd probably try cross-dressing.

I tend towards acting a tad girly on account of my school is filled with jocks. Because of how stupid and pointless their actions often appear, I have been conditioned to do the exact opposite of what the jocks do. If a jock crushes a milk carton on his head, I sit in the corner quietly and eat my lunch gracefully. That's the kind of person I am, or that I have become by resisting them.

I'm straight - I love my girlfriend and I will still love her even when she stops loving me - but so many of the guys in my area are so loud, obnoxious and rude that I may one day think to myself that I don't want to be a guy anymore. I may be driven to start dressing like a girl, and consciously acting like a girl. And if and when that day comes, I can only hope that my girlfriend will accept my decision and won't stop being the best friend I have.

Edited by DavidReinold, 26 December 2011 - 01:31 AM.

[DashSim]

Here's a thought; why do people who "want" to be a girl associate with girly things like the color pink and princesses?

For the same reasons cisgender girls do, perhaps?

I suppose Barbie and pink put more emphasis on beauty perhaps? So in that case, if we had toys that emphasized beauty or more materialistic pleasures that were "socially acceptable" for boys to play with, would these people still want to be transgendered?

The short answer is yes.

Perhaps I'm misreading, but there seems to me to be an underlying assumption in your post that all trans girls are feminine, or try to be feminine. This is really, really not the case. There are gay trans women (i.e., trans women who are attracted to women), butch trans women... For an example of how gender identity is different from gender expression, I once saw a YouTube vlog of a gay trans man who cross dresses. That'll shatter a lot of assumptions about these things. Sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are all separate and distinct.

[Radien]

Huh. And here I'd just started using the term "transsexual" because I thought "transvestite" was too offensive. Not that I won't start using the word "transgendered" instead, I mean, I'm willing to say whatever is the least offensive...

Well, transsexual is still WORLDS better than transvestite, in my opinion, because "transvestite" has a strong connotation as "someone who crossdresses for sexual pleasure." Taken literally, "transvestite" only literally means "crossdresser," but the word was coined mainly to refer to a crossdressing sexual fetish. The term is still used more often in the U.K. For instance, the comedian Eddie Izzard freely uses the word "transvestite" even though his reasons for crossdressing aren't grounded in sexual thrills.

"Transsexual" is a slightly better word when referring to gender identity, but it often leads to some inaccurate assumptions -- like, "you aren't transsexual until you undergo surgery" -- and on top of that, the term "transgendered" is more inclusive. In a way, it covers all the "grey area" in one fell swoop.

And to make it even more complicated, apparently some people describe themselves as "bigender"... in other words, they claim to have a male side and a female side to their personality in equal proportions. I'm not sure whether that implies multiple personalities.

Personally, I'm fine with just declaring varying points in between. In many ways, I consider it a lot like the difference between "introverted" and "extroverted," because with those two, you aren't one or the other; you can be anywhere in-between. For instance, I've taken personality tests and it seems I ride the line between introversion and extroversion.

(Perhaps it's no coincidence: Carl Jung popularized the ideas of introversion and extroversion, and he is also responsible for many groundbreaking theories about the gender spectrum.)

On a side-note...looking at the list of "signs" Nicole showed, I vaguely recall going through a phase like that when I was six...and now here I am, back again, asking for My Little Pony brushables for christmas and using voice changers to make music as a female vocalist...

Haha, I never thought of doing that. Once, I was using a karaoke machine that allowed you to change the key of the song, and I found that if you had vocals turned on, it would affect the voice as well. Lowering a female voice down to my range made it sound just like a male. Before that point, I had always assumed there was more of a difference between male and female voices than that, but apparently, pitch is just about the only thing that makes a voice sound male or female.

So anyway, what I'm getting at is that it should TOTALLY work to simply pitch-shift, and you could probably fool listeners into thinking you're the opposite gender. But I've never thought of trying that with my own voice, partially because I am rather intimidated of the idea of recording my singing on the computer. I really should get over that. I mean, I'd still need to acquire a proper USB microphone, but I sing so often that I should have tried recording by now.

The funniest thing I can imagine doing would be auditioning for a "virtual choir" as a soprano. There's this director who has done several virtual choirs -- he takes recordings as auditions, and has the singers sing their parts while watching a video of him directing. Then he compiles all the recordings into one audio file. The only problem is that he has people use webcams so he can show their faces in the video. Oh well.

And I respectfully disagree. I think, when it comes to definitions, Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com are slightly more reliable than *cough cough* a referral-based search engine.

I mean, I love google, but if it's your only source of information, you're going to find yourself with contradictions in your knowledge.

Well, listing "Google" as your source of information is kinda like listing "libraries" as your source of information. Google isn't a source of information itself; it is a tool for FINDING sources of information. The viability of the source is what determines the quality of the information, and a good researcher knows how to use Google to find good sources, and also how to tell a good source from a bad source.

(Note: I don't necessarily claim to be a good researcher. In truth I really hate the source-evaluation process. But I also recognize its importance, even though I hate doing it myself. There are very few things I hate more than a term paper that requires a complete bibliography in an approved format. *shudder*)

Dictionary definitions are useful for a preliminary understanding of an idea, but just because they are brief does NOT mean they are the "last word." For instance, using a dictionary entry to sum up an entire subject is bad form in a discussion. Using it to dissect word usage is a better purpose, particularly when the issue is a communication error due to grammar.

[Vinyl Scratch]

Welp, I guess I'd like the poke this thread a little late to the party after finding a <!> VERY INTERESTING READ <!>

Cause google is always right. Always. Ahem.

Anyway, transsexuals scare me. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against them, heck, I applaud them for going their own way, but what scares me is that one day I could meet a cute girl and find out that she used to be a dude. That would totally freak me out. Either way though, this story was a good read.

Here you go.

TL;DR Man finds out that somebody who he had a sexual relationship with was once/still is a man. He goes into a fit of rage, grabs a gun, and murders her/him/whatever(Darnell/Dee Deel Pearson) and another guy(Joseph T. Jones).

Oh, and then the murderer gets charged with Second Degree Murder, which is complete bulls***.

Edit: I'll admit, the statement that used to be here was stated pretty poorly, and I'm sorry about that.

Edited by Vaelstrom, 31 December 2011 - 01:58 PM.

[Warrior_of_Death]

silly humans, always trying to label something. Beyond the whole "soul" nonsense, there probably is some basic "male" and "female" mindset that flourishes with the right environment or otherwise ends up developing. Depending on a person's upbringing, anything they are exposed to they will have a reaction to, influenced by their past. Similar to say, traumatic childhood events showing themselves decades later still. Except in this case, transgenderism/sexuality manifests when the appropriate environmental (which includes social) stimuli affect the person in question.

As for vaelstrom's marginally ignorant "you shouldn't be getting sexual with people until you're post-op", it all depends on how open-minded the other person is. Sadly, in this day and age, being gay is still a problem, sexuality is still taboo in this retardedly-structured western society, and kids are forced to grow up with certain ideals shoved down their throats and most of the time the damage to them is nigh irreparable. Hopefully someday it will be as commonplace to tell one's parents they're gay or transgendered as it is to tell them say, that they got an A on a test or something to that effect.

[Vinyl Scratch]

-le snip-

Edited by Vaelstrom, 31 December 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[Radien]

Personally, I feel that even post-op, a person should be open about their birth gender and gender identity with their partner. Two reasons:

1. Successful relationships are based on trust, and regardless of how you perceive the facts, hiding a thing such as this is the opposite of trust.

2. If your partner couldn't accept that part of you if they knew, then they probably aren't the right partner to begin with.


I feel that hiding something like this is a lot like wandering alone into a dark alley after midnight: sure, you may believe that you *should* be able to do something like that without fear of the repercussions, but the truth is that you are taking a huge risk.

[Vinyl Scratch]

Personally, I feel that even post-op, a person should be open about their birth gender and gender identity with their partner. Two reasons:

1. Successful relationships are based on trust, and regardless of how you perceive the facts, hiding a thing such as this is the opposite of trust.

2. If your partner couldn't accept that part of you if they knew, then they probably aren't the right partner to begin with.
I feel that hiding something like this is a lot like wandering alone into a dark alley after midnight: sure, you may believe that you *should* be able to do something like that without fear of the repercussions, but the truth is that you are taking a huge risk.

Yeah, it's definitely best to be more open about it, more-so with your partner, but friends too. I mean, if your friends can't accept you, they really aren't your friends, right?

[Sheik]

Personally, I feel that even post-op, a person should be open about their birth gender and gender identity with their partner. Two reasons:

1. Successful relationships are based on trust, and regardless of how you perceive the facts, hiding a thing such as this is the opposite of trust.

2. If your partner couldn't accept that part of you if they knew, then they probably aren't the right partner to begin with.
I feel that hiding something like this is a lot like wandering alone into a dark alley after midnight: sure, you may believe that you *should* be able to do something like that without fear of the repercussions, but the truth is that you are taking a huge risk.

Well, of course that would be nice if the people that are affected could be totally open about it and everybody would accept who/how they are. Also, Bambi shouldn't die and after buying two pricy drinks you should get one free. But that's simply not the world we live in.

And may I be quite honest? This is somewhat directed at Robin's post: All you guys with that "Oh I totally accept you but please stay away from me" attitude - that's borderline hypocracy.

Edited by Yoshimi, 31 December 2011 - 02:21 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

And may I be quite honest? This is somewhat directed at Robin's post: All you guys with that "Oh I totally accept you but please stay away from me" attitude - that's borderline hypocracy.

Yup, that's about the size of it. In fact, I'd almost call that a worse attitude than outright hate. If there's one thing that's worse than being treated like dirt, it's being avoided like you have syphilis. It's a lot more difficult to get past that kind of treatment when it feels back-handed. For someone to take that kind of attitude to the issue is outright hurtful.

People act different; that doesn't mean it's okay to treat them different.

Edited by DavidReinold, 31 December 2011 - 02:34 PM.