Serafina wrote:I never said that hate of their body, or at least a specific part of the body, was the cause.
At first hand, because it brings to the table something interesting.
You can hate certain parts of your body, but do not hate... your brain? (hey, careful, I won't accept any pun on that)
If the brain is the reason why you can't cope with the integral rest of your body, wouldn't your brain be the main focus of your bitterness, regardless of your capacity to alter it or not?
You don't get it, do you?
I get that the brain happens to be the source of what is defined as abnormal in the articles you and others have provided, and that's quite logical since the sexual organs grow according to the sexual chromosomes, but the brain seems to go bonkers at some point.
So obviously, the construction of the brain is the issue. So why not hate the brain instead of the rest?
The brain defines gender identity. A transwoman is female, a transman male. They want to live that way.
Their body prevents that. That's why transsexuals typically develop an aversion towards the parts of the body that prevent that.
And the brain prevents the trans-whatever to act like the his/her genotype should have him/her act like.
It's just like a paraplegic who might hate that aspect of his body because it impedes his life.
Because the impaired body is the clear source of the problem. Yet all your articles show that the brain is when it comes to transies.
Unless you believe homosexual display their behaviour because of a psychological logic, their choice, then no, it's the same stuff, because then they do it because of what their body (brain, chemicals, etc.) dictate.
This is hilarious.
What do you think constitutes your personality? Your brain chemistry.
And what's "psychological logic" supposed to be anyway?
You obviously don't read properly.
I offered a dilemma which seemed fair to define the behaviour of homos: hardware related, of psychology, which includes every single parameter that defines a personna beyond the basic fleshy template one starts with.
Aside from the mildly amusing idea of a lesbian transwoman (two wrongs don't make a right), I understand your position on this.
Oh, so i am wrong now? Great opinion right there /sarcasm.
From the standpoint of the drive for reproduction, you are an error. It doesn't mean I wouldn't help you. If I treated you like you were an ape, or a dog, or that you had no soul, I wouldn't even bother debating with you.
I see you has a human with a biomechanical defect. It doesn't mean you're stupid. You could have an IQ considerably higher than mine for all I know.
OK well "transies" then, or perhaps "shifters"? I can't be bothered typing the whole word everytime.
Yeah, right...intellectual laziness is fun, isn't it?[/quote]
This is useful how? There's no consensus on how the people like you shall be called, nor which pronouns should be used, and you whine because I actually make suggestions?
You realize you're not helping your case, right?
You clearly have no actual contact with transsexuals. Of course, some are overcompensating - but you can't make a general statement based on a few people.
Indeed, nearly all transsexuals i know (which should be OOMs more than you do) want to achieve "stealth" - living as a woman (or man) without being recognized as transsexual.
OK. Still, there doesn't seem to be much of a sexual market for women to men people, but perhaps I'm missing something here as well?
Sexual market? What the fuck are you talking about?[/quote]
And Serafine discovers the internets...
Same applies to the other "gender". A shemale can wear male clothes, and will pass for a woman wearing men clothes.
So if transmen stick out, it's because they dress in clothes exposing their secret and it shows, no more, no less.
That's why I considered that transwomen (but I should some now) do it to enjoy the seductive power of females.
Aah, pure, unfiltered bias :barf:
Sorry, but that's beyond any further comment.
That's a concession from you then. You just have nothing better to say to the fact that your argument is blasted because you fully know that a transwoman could wear male clothes.
Well then what we're dealing with here is a technical problem. Individuals who have a drive for same-sex or suffer from a conflict between their brain and the rest of their body as the brain thinks in gender A and the body is suited to behave like gender B, and who belong to a species that reproduces sexually and relies on the heterosexual mutual attraction between the two different genders it comprises, are biological dead ends and therefore errors.
It doesn't mean they have to be ignored or considered as sub-humans, but they cannot be considered normal, from this perspective.
As errors and threats to the survival of the species, it is logical for the average unit of this life form to be repulsed by these errors.
Evolution is not morality. Unless you are into eugenics, that is.
Who spoke of morality? The mechanical technicalities of the surivval of a life form don't care about morality.
Now, it doesn't mean we can't work out around this instinctive repulsion. We have brains, we can use them. This is where education at a large scale becomes relevant. It's a process that occurs over several generations, and the "bigotry" you hate won't disappear, but it may be silenced to some degree, toned down.
That said I'd like to point you to this:
http://www.hrc.org/issues/9598.htm
At some point, it says:
Transgender Population
There are no concrete statistics on the number of transgender people in the United States. Estimates on the number of transsexual people, which ignore the broader transgender population, range anywhere from 0.25 to 1 percent of the U.S. population. These estimates are dated and likely undercount the transsexual population because, for example, they do not account for people who have not yet undergone, cannot (for medical, financial, safety or other reasons) or choose not to undergo sex reassignment surgeries.
Now let's pause for a moment.
An outdated and narrower count method provides a figure that's between 0.25 and 1 % of the US population.
Broaden the count and update it, and you might well found a bracketed figure above and below 1%, making the average around 0.75% or 1%.
Now, 1% is a big number. Over several posts, you, Omin and Kor have posted studies, sometimes conflicting, but which all agree that what's responsible of transsexuality is not normal.
Then, if the numbers were outdated, meaning that the percentage could change significantly as to warrant a mention of such a possible difference between old and fresh census, then it means there's an evolution.
The point is, you won't change society fast enough, no matter what, when a form of abnormality, perhaps as far as being congenital, evolves so fast and does shock instincts.
"Evolves so fast"? You have no idea how evolution works, do you?
Natural evolution has nothing to do with that. It has to do with head count.
By the wording of the articles, it appears that the phenomenon is growing significantly, while populations in occidental societies tend to stagnate, if not literally recede.
If the
real percentage of transies in a society doesn't evolve, then you can ignore my point. But the article clearly suggested it not to be the case.
Either way, most statistics on transsexuals are outdated. As an example, the statistics for Germany were taken BEFORE the law concerning transsexuality (opening important possibilities) was passed. The statistics for today are merely elaborated from that point. Obviously, living transsexual was much harder back then, therefore the numbers were most likely too small.
Just like the amount of homosexual people would have appeared to be much smaller 50 years ago, the apparent percentage of transsexuals differs - according to what society permits.
The question is, has the real count changed, or is it just a reflection of the change of counting standards and perhaps greater coming outs?
Not to say that 1% is a huge percent of the population. That's more than three millions in the US.
It's best exemplified in the feminist article here, which speaks of "growing fluidity of gender".
Frankly, there's nothing good about learning that there's a growth of gender fluidity. It's quite insane.
Ah, because being open-minded is so much worse than thinking in narrow categories. Gotcha.
Ah, because thinking positively about the idea of a growth of gender fluidity is a good thing? Gotcha.
(clue: no, it is not, otherwise it means you wish more and more people were like you)
For example, most transsexuals already express their desire as young children at the age where gender identity in general is recognized (as soon as children see a difference between male and female). There are also recent scientific studies that show that a transwomans brain is very similar to that of a biological female.
It appears that there's conflict on that after all, in some cases.
What conflict?
If you are appealing to conflict within the scientific community, you are no better than a creationist.[/quote]
Conflict between the sources you and others cited, genius. *sheesh*
Being transsexual is NOT about desiring women so much that you want to be one. It's simply about being a woman and wanting to live like one.
Yep. I had not ruled out a "hardware" reason behind it, but with no medical background on this I looked too much into the psychology of it, so it pretty much passed as an extrapolation, and a wrong one.
Pro-Tip:
Psychology is very complicated. You are no more qualified to comment on it than on medicine or quantum mechanics.[/quote]
Pro-tip: you didn't debunk my hypothesis with facts based on psychology but based on sheer issues abou the biological basic template at birth, which do not involve the shaping of the personality over the years.
Well, to be frank - that's your problem.
No, mostly because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population would be repulsed as well, and so comes the question of knowing if choosing the operation is better or not. Now I'm sure there are ace plastic surgeons around who will achieve good works, but there are the mediocre ones as well, and not every one is full of cash.
Guess what - there was a time where the majority of the population was repulsed by homosexuality as well. Or inter-racial marriage.
Besides, it's just morally evil to treat people badly because they do not look pretty to you.[/quote]
That's bull. The repulsion comes from the fact that a transwoman tries to look like a woman, but traits betray the former male traits.
The vast majority of the profiles available on
this page illustrate my point.
Isis King is one of the few transwomen who don't really show their original traits.
That said, the work to be done was less considerable considering her
original traits as a boy.
Lynn Conway would also totally fool me, from this picture. But one picture is not all. Picking Estelle Asmodelle's wiki page, she seems okay, but when you see her
here, the bell rings.
Asians also seem to make easier transitions, but it's not always the case either.
Now, the case that's highlighted on the wiki page just says it all as far as my former claim went.
For example,
this lady looks like a man wearing a wig, fake breasts and a ton of make up. The jaw is the betrayer here.
Sometimes it's the muscles (and guess what, excessive musculature in women is not attractive to most men), the broad shoulders, something with the jaw, the cheeks or else.
The point stands. As far I'm concerned, only well done ops would fool me. Sorry to use the word fool btw, perhaps convince would be better?
Feminism wasn't "shoved down the throats" of anybody.
I strongly disagree, if only for the fact that organizing marches, revolutions over so many countries across the worlds and still filling papers with feminist argumentation today did cost and costs a lot. You don't grow such a world wide revolution from the gathered outcome of a few disgruntled women. This is not unique to feminism though.
Oh, i suppose the civil rights movement for black people was shoved down our throats as well then?[/quote]
Yes. Did you forgot that half of America didn't give a shit at some point, and that even good old Washington had a couple of black slaves? And you think this didn't cost much money? What kind of cloud are you living on?
However, not it's good riddance, but equaling anti-black racism with feminism is terrible.
"Rights of women" is just as vague as it can get. There's so good and some bad in it. Let's move on though.
Tell me, what's the bad part then?
Not there. I said I wouldn't argue about this, and considering your talent in rhetoric, I suspect it would also be a massive waste of my time.
The silver lining is: your body naturally sucks; enhance it. Of course most people will never look like the very few plastic dolls on TV and that will always be source of anxiety and a form of self-hatred. You'll compensate in any possible way, from over compulsive buying to consumption of food and, of course, the use of all those chemicals over and over and over.
I'd suggest you travel outside of that country you live in and go to some "poor" places where people don't have the luxury of being able to pay for that junk and are not flooded in mass of advertising and that kind of social conditioning.
Aah, eeevil chemicals. Always fun.
Ah, a nice appeal to ridicule. It's been a while on this board. I'm really glad you joined us, most enlightening.
Tell me, what's bad about trying to look good?
Beyond reason?
Well you leave me dumbfounded. How can you not see how bad it is would probably be the real question. Of course, it's the same society that flashes those concepts about chemicals and plastic surgery into out eye globes at any occasion that also allowed "your people" to complete the transformation they seek. To know if both can be dissociated is another question.
Again:
Give me a valid reason why this should be bad?
Abuse (because we must call a cat a cat) of cosmetics and plastic surgery to look "better" is good?
And since when volume was exclusively related to efficiency?
Science refuses to claim that women are dumber despite having smaller brains (and when some articles awkwardly do, the superior intelligence of men is described as a problem to intelligent women, and strong conclusions are drawn from the fact that women attend foreign language schools more than men, that despite pointing out, a few lines before, that men really do well in maths and physics, which would explain why, eventually even with equal language skills, they'd go for the math and physics courses).
Is it feminism that allows this kind of "conclusion" as seen in the paper to be made? In the same article, the case of Lawrence Summers reveals how feminism may even silence what some see as mere scientifically established proof - doesn't mean I agree or not, but I'm merely pointing this out, even if it's quite highly off topic from the original off topic.
Does it talk about efficiency?
And how would you call an argument about superiority in doing X or Y if not a case of demonstrating efficiency, if not superior efficiency?
But of course, the evil feminist conspiracy must distort the evidence :roll:
Oh, another one. Keep going Serafina.
Welcome to pseudo science. It makes fuck all sense.
Since when gathering nuts, breastfeeding kiddos and cleaning a cave favoured greater language skills?
Let's get out of this caricature and point out something.
If we are to assume that women have a greater capacity in language skills, it's obviously from the premise that men and women live in a society wherein language matters.
Now tell me, how could language not matter just as much to men, who are depicted as conquerors in an era of literature?
Let's imagine that we move on from an era of men fighting with sticks in order to collect food, control territory, grow superiority from mutual support and against the enemy, to an era of military, politics and economics with different tools, where schools and diplomacy matters a hell of a lot.
Now tell me, why the need to prevail and become the alpha in economics, science, military, politics or even sports (which all involve managing your squads btw) wouldn't be as many good reasons in order to develop superior language skills?
Or perhaps Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, etc. were people ignorant of their status of men with a female brain?...
Ah, nitpicking. Always fun.
And again not understanding how evolution works. Two strikes in one post!
[sarcasm]You obviously have proved that you do.[/sarcasm]
I'm not intereted in your stupid one liners.
If you quite scientific articles, try to actually address them properly next time.
You mean quote?
Note that I have no issue calling you a "she".
I may even suggest using "ser" or "sera", as Serafina, everytime one hesitates between he and she. :)
Therefore no he, she or it.
By that same token, can i call you "Ora"? /sarcasm
I'm trying to find a solution and somehow this drives you to act like an idiot. If you want to call me Ora, fine, do so. Like I give.
