Being transgender is hard

[Alt+F4]

Can I just say then, that if either of my 2 boys turn out to be gay (or trans), it won't make a ha'porth of difference to how I feel about them.

That's great, you are the exception and happily the exception will eventually get so large it will be the majority....but not yet. There is still much misunderstanding and many parents don't take the news well. You certainly seem more tolerant than my parents were, btw they were born in 1921, I think that has a lot to do with it too.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Can I just say then, that if either of my 2 boys turn out to be gay (or trans), it won't make a ha'porth of difference to how I feel about them.

I'd have thought it would make you more concerned for their well being given the problems transgender people often experience.

Don't transgender people want others to feel differently about them? I.e. others to stop thinking about / treating them based on the attributes associated with their physical sex?

 

[L.Y.S.]

sorry buddy but it does happen over night. Gay marriage happened over night in NYC one day it didn't exist the next day it did. I don't care if you "get it" or "are neutral about it" or "disagree".

Gay people didn't get their rights over night it took nearly 1500 years for western civilization to accept that homosexuality was something real and not a matter of mind power. I repeat 1500 years. Of course it won't take that long for TG, but you cannot expect people to just accept things in the course of a few decades. It's not feasible nor is it logical.

If it's legal and a fair right and you decide you want to have a conversation because allowing someone to do something they have the freedom to do in their life just doesn't "sit right" with you for some reason, it is not only ignorance. That is exactly what being a bigot means.

To have a conversation makes me a bigot? Puhleeze. I haven't done anything to anyone. Stop playing the victim. Just because I don't agree with you or your cause doesn't mean I'm against. It means I don't care. I never said anyone shouldn't do it. I am not for or against it. My greatest feeling towards this entire subject is apathy. Because the self-image in the human mind is something humans don't fully understand. Until my other questions are disproven, I see no reason to side with anyone.

Also you must be a young black man if you think that people have a right to be intolerant. I don't think you really understand what you are saying.

My age is irrelevant. It is because I'm black that I know things take time to accept. Black people are still not fully tolerated by our society. I grew up during the crack epidemics when they were cuffing guys left and right. So please don't feed me that garbage about age. Things take time. You can't expect all people to agree with you. I'm certain this situation will be as any other civil rights issue which will take decades to fully accept publically. And I think this is what Alt + F4 was getting at. She never stated if people should or should not accept it, only that it will take time to accept.

(Speaking for my self now) I personally couldn't care less about the situation, nor has this conversation change my opinions drastically. If anything it simply but me firmly on the fence. At one point I was leaning towards the against side. Now I am just on top of the fence and I don't see myself coming down anytime soon. I'm still skeptical and reserve my right to remain so.

 

[L.Y.S.]

So would you be against civil rights acts or similar laws? Interesting. Not sure how that would work.

If the majority of people become informed and therefore decide to pass a law requiring everyone to be tolerant whether they want to be or not, do you think that's an example of the majority's free choice, or does that take away the rights of the minority to be intolerant?

For example, if a little southern town, to this day, wanted to have segregated schools and drinking fountains, and make black people sit at the back of their buses, would it be wrong for more-informed people to prohibit them?

Unfortunately this is an entirely different conversation in it of itself. I will say that my opinions differ drastically from most of my counterparts. I will leave it at that.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'd have thought it would make you more concerned for their well being given the problems transgender people often experience.

Don't transgender people want others to feel differently about them? I.e. others to stop thinking about / treating them based on the attributes associated with their physical sex?

Maybe I'd be more concerned - but I wouldn't equate that to feeling "differently about them".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Gender is a social construct. It heartens me that people are starting to feel the freedom to adopt whichever gender they best identify with.

<snip>

If gender is a social construct, why are transgender people sure their body is the wrong sex, often from an early age?

 

[Toke]

If gender is a social construct, why are transgender people sure their body is the wrong sex, often from an early age?

Maybe because they become aware of society´s gender roles at an early age?

 

[truethat]

Gay people didn't get their rights over night it took nearly 1500 years for western civilization to accept that homosexuality was something real and not a matter of mind power. I repeat 1500 years. Of course it won't take that long for TG, but you cannot expect people to just accept things in the course of a few decades. It's not feasible nor is it logical.

Acceptance of transgender people will happen much faster because it is a medical diagnosis and people have been aggressive about putting the information out there. Also because it is not about behavior. A lot of the racism directed towards the black community is based on the fact that the crime rate is so high in communities with large numbers of black people. It is easy to judge. Likewise it is easy to judge homosexuality as a behavior choice etc.

The medical diagnosis here is what will make it easier for people to accept.

Unless they want to be willfully ignorant.

To have a conversation makes me a bigot? Puhleeze. I haven't done anything to anyone. Stop playing the victim. Just because I don't agree with you or your cause doesn't mean I'm against. It means I don't care. I never said anyone shouldn't do it. I am not for or against it. My greatest feeling towards this entire subject is apathy. Because the self-image in the human mind is something humans don't fully understand. Until my other questions are disproven, I see no reason to side with anyone.

How am I "playing the victim." This issue doesn't effect me in the slightest.

I'd like you to read your comment here a few times. You keep saying that you want to have a conversation and don't want to take sides. This is an example of you being willfully ignorant. I have said that you don't understand and you need to do more research. Why? Because there is NO SIDE. There is either the facts or there is someone who doesn't understand the facts and feels like this is "weird" or "doesn't make sense" because they refuse to accept the research that has been done for decades.

Look up the definition of a bigot

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This is the part that I apply to your posts. Honestly I don't think you personally are a bigot and I don't think you are really intolerant. I just think you like many other people are saying you want more information before you "decide" what to believe, but really you don't want that, because if you did you would have read the information, understood it and realized there is no SIDE in this issue.

That's why I compare it to evolution. If someone said to you that they are neutral to the idea of evolution and aren't going to take sides yet, you would probably think they were either a creationist, willfully ignorant or very unintelligent.

My age is irrelevant. It is because I'm black that I know things take time to accept. Black people are still not fully tolerated by our society. I grew up during the crack epidemics when they were cuffing guys left and right. So please don't feed me that garbage about age. Things take time. You can't expect all people to agree with you. I'm certain this situation will be as any other civil rights issue which will take decades to fully accept publically. And I think this is what Alt + F4 was getting at. She never stated if people should or should not accept it, only that it will take time to accept.

Of course it takes time. But I disagree that we should use that to soothe transgender frustration. Instead we should work against it by aggressively going up against ignorance.

Case in point, look how you changed your opinion a little just in a matter of a few days in discussion. When you started trying to "wander off in conversation" into the realm of ignorance because you didn't really understand the issue I aggressively tried to quash that conversation because it was irrelevant and would only serve to build ideas surrounding this based on ignorance. This is why I said you need to read and understand BEFORE you have a conversation about it.

Going back to the conversation regarding racism towards young black men being harassed by the police, many people accept this as the "norm" because they believe that young black men are more likely to be criminals than white men. So they believe it is justified. The same way many people believe that racial profiling of Arabs in airports is justified. It is not based on real statistics and information and understanding, it is based on ignorance.

I have ignorance and the same kind of intolerant feelings about many groups. I did about transgender issues years ago. I am not better than anyone. I have many flaws in this area. But sitting having a conversation based on ignorance builds ignorance. I'm sure you would agree.

(Speaking for my self now) I personally couldn't care less about the situation, nor has this conversation change my opinions drastically. If anything it simply but me firmly on the fence. At one point I was leaning towards the against side. Now I am just on top of the fence and I don't see myself coming down anytime soon. I'm still skeptical and reserve my right to remain so.

I'm glad you are willing to reconsider your position. I would suggest to you an image of you sitting on top of the fence. You have a bag in each of your hands. On the "against" side you have a bag that is filled with feathers of uncertainty and misinformation and ignorance. On the "for" side you have a bag that is filled with bricks of information, research and understanding. I hope you let the bag pull you towards understanding.

Peace. Also thank you for being willing to reconsider your position.

 

[truethat]

If gender is a social construct, why are transgender people sure their body is the wrong sex, often from an early age?

Social constructs often help the transgender realize more quickly that they are identifying with the opposite gender.

I would like to point out that there is not "two" genders, male or female. There are also gender queer people who do not identify specifically with either male or female.

The video I posted before has a really interesting diagram in it that explains it a bit which is helpful.

I'll post it again here.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm glad you are willing to reconsider your position. I would suggest to you an image of you sitting on top of the fence. You have a bag in each of your hands. On the "against" side you have a bag that is filled with feathers of uncertainty and misinformation and ignorance. On the "for" side you have a bag that is filled with bricks of information, research and understanding. I hope you let the bag pull you towards understanding.

Nope, there are no bags. You will not use any more of your ad hominen, straw men, and verbal tricks to sway me anymore. I have researched the issue and while there are pretty conclusive arguments for your side, I'm still doubtful because the other side has some convincing arguments. There are no "bags" on my hands whatsoever and I am not being pulled down to any side. Nor will I change my mind about this subject any time soon. It took years of research for me to accept homosexuality. I can only suspect the same will be true for the transgender debate. I have a conservative upbringing and while I have escaped many of the negative and dogmatic ideologies of my parents I still have my complete and utter doubts about the subject.

I am only a bigot because I do not willfully and outright agree with you. I have only changed my opinion about an individual's right to pursue their own desires without interference. This conversation has not yet made me change my opinion that this subject is of real controversy or not. And to the TG community it will seem disrespectful, but that is simply the way it is. I'm not fully convinced every option and avenue has been explored. Especially because the science of self-image is in its infancy. And there are many other dysphonias out there including GID that have very little explanation.

At best we have a few cases that suggest it is harmful to force will on someone, but that is in any case. Which is why reformative therapies fail in the first place with any behavior, including pedophilia. Because it tries to force an individual out of their natural preferences. It is clear that only a change in the perception of self can truly have any impact on a person. Desires cannot be extinguished once they are born and must be replaced by other outlets.

I am simply too doubtful of the conclusions of the other side to fully accept this as being a real phenomenon. Being skeptical is not being a "bigot"; it is being an independent thinker. And I choose the right to remain skeptical, which means I do not advocate (nor would I ever) for the harming or prevention of persons to choose their free will.

As for the child debacle, it was clear from the get go that it was being discussed as such. I will stick to my original story and let it be known that what I was arguing against was the child debate. In fact many other individuals on this thread were arguing the same. But they have chosen to ignore you instead of fuel your raging ego and desire to "aggressively" combat ignorance. The same way Christian evangelicals "aggressively" combat ignorant sinners. You are ironically judging me just those who judge you do as well. You are doing the same as those who you don’t like. You are ironically polarizing sides when in fact there are more than two sides to choose on the issue. IN short, you are using the same aggressive rhetoric I hear from evangelicals just with a different subject matter. I top my hat off to Dessi for keeping cool and collected this entire debate. Instead of using rhetoric she debunked a few of my previously held beliefs. If anything thing, Dessi deserves complete and utter credit for changing my mind on things. Her calm and collected approach to this debate got me receptive to many of her arguments. And I must truly applaud her and thank her for opening my eyes somewhat. +1 Dessi. It was certainly not you and aggressively hostile lectures.

I can tell you right now "aggressively" doing anything isn't going to change my mind whatsoever. Only absolute evidence can make me drastically change my mind about anything. It literally took a 5 minute clip from the movie "for the bible tells me so" for me to drastically change my perceptions on homosexuality, even though I have already generally accepted it. This clip took me from neutral acceptance to firm support. And from what I have seen, even with the deaths, and cases of harm, there is simply nothing as solid for this debate.

I am not thoroughly convinced of anything until they find a smoking gun on the subject. And you have your entitlement to get upset, call me bigot, hell pm a few of your buddies and call me a dumb n word for all I care. There isn't much to convince of what the other side is saying is true. And if you view it as willful instead of you not really having heavy support for your side, then so be it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If gender is a social construct, why are transgender people sure their body is the wrong sex, often from an early age?

As I understand it, for many/most of the transgender, it really is a gender issue and not a sex issue.
That is, they identify with primarily "feminine traits" or primarily "maculine traits", not necessarily with having certain genitals.
In other words, if our society dictated that "women" were generally aggressive, tough, rugged individualist creatures, and "men" were generally sensitive, nuturing, fashionable social creatures*, then some of those who are currently transgendered might not be.

To put it another way, if some of the primary cultural traits associated with one gender were bookishness and intellectual behavior and I was assigned the other gender, I might be transgender because I so strongly identify with those traits. Fortunately, these traits are non-gendered (at least enough so that me and my opposite-gendered partner can both own them without questioning gender identity).

And to the extent that we can remove assigning traits to one gender, fewer individuals strongly identifying with those traits would feel the need to question their gender identity in response. In a truly one-gendered world, for instance (where individuals' traits are not attributed to their gender at all), transgender would be meaningless.

*feel free to substitute other gendered attributes; there are quite a few

 

[Dessi]

Just read this today, World Professional Assocation of Transgender Health revised their standards of care. You can see them here, a few key points are:

• Psychotherapy is no longer a requirement to receive hormones and surgery, although it is suggested.

"It used to be a minimum amount of psychotherapy was needed. An assessment is still required but that can be done by the prescribing hormone provider," Bockting explained.

• A number of community health centers in the U.S. have developed protocols for providing hormone therapy based an approach known as the Informed Consent Model. These protocols are consistent with version 7 revisions of WPATH's standards of care.

"The SOC are flexible clinical guidelines; they allow for tailoring of interventions to the needs of the individual receiving services and for tailoring of protocols to the approach and setting in which these services are provided," Coleman explained.

"Access is more open and acknowledges transgender care is being provided in community health centers. This certainly makes it easier to access hormones," Bockting added.

• There are now different standards for surgery, as well. For example, a transgender man who wants a hysterectomy no longer has to live one year as a male in order to receive the surgery. Likewise, a transgender woman who wants her testicles removed does not have to live one year as a female.

For people who want genital reconstructive surgery, however, the standards of care recommend living a year in the role of the gender they are transitioning.

• Another major change, Bockting explained, is that the standards "allow for a broader spectrum of identities – they are no longer so binary."

"There is no one way of being transgender and it doesn't have to mirror the idea of a change of their sex," Bockting explained.

"These standards allow for a gender queer person to have breasts removed without ever taking hormones," he said.

Main reason for these changes is to give more ready access to healthcare. A lot of people perceive the standards as unnecessarily restrictive: 3-6 months of counseling prior before getting a referral for hormones, one year of the 'real life experience' while on HRT + 2 referrals from counselors prior to GRS, etc.

Some people don't have the money for the prequisites, don't particularly want or need to transition fully, don't really get anything out of 6 months of counseling, and are unfairly excluded from tg healthcare. Regarding the counseling thing, here in Nebraska, there's one particular counselor that everyone goes to and adores, she usually writes referrals after 3 months, I've heard from quite a few people that they've stated up front that they're going through counseling because its a formality of the Standards of Care, its otherwise a waste of their time.

I think the changes are beneficial.

 

[Dessi]

As I understand it, for many/most of the transgender, it really is a gender issue and not a sex issue.
That is, they identify with primarily "feminine traits" or primarily "maculine traits", not necessarily with having certain genitals.

Nitpick: transmen don't identify with feminine traits

In other words, if our society dictated that "women" were generally aggressive, tough, rugged individualist creatures, and "men" were generally sensitive, nuturing, fashionable social creatures*, then some of those who are currently transgendered might not be.

While the claim that tg women hock $50K in transition costs to legitimize their sensitive and fasionable nature is certainly an interesting suggestion, I don't think it matches up with most tg people's experience. In fact I'd say tg women's interests tend to be as far removed from, say, sensitive/fashionable/effeminate men and crossdressers as imaginable.

I'm picking up on two things here:

1) I think you're generalizing your own experience -- that you self-identify as genderless -- as a rule that applies to everyone. I think your particular case is the exception. If it were the norm, perhaps David Reimer could have been socialized as a girl.

2) I think you are looking for a reason why some people are tg. Believe me, you're not alone, I'd love an answer to that question too. Maybe the reasons are different between tg men and tg women, maybe it has the same underlying causes. We don't know what causes it, and I have a hard to expressing in words why some tg people feel the way they do, at best its just a wordless and uncanny feeling that things aren't what they seem.

I try not to think about it too much. I simply take comfort in the fact that almost all t-girls -- whether rich or poor, educated or average, religious or otherwise, sensitive or cold, whatever race or ethnicity -- share the common experience of feeling goofy as hell in those first few months of voice training

 

[AvalonXQ]

Eh, not really.

My explanation/narrative is mainly based on the idea that gender is primarily a social construct. That is, many of our mannerisms and attitudes are taught, and we are evaluated against a gendered model of behavior and characteristics.

I see it kind of like this:...
Here's five personality traits in which a person can exhibit from between 1 to 10. In our culture, the "masculine ideal" is an (8,8,5,2,2) and the "feminine ideal" is a (2,2,5,8,8). Only "characteristic 3" is ungendered; the other traits are strongly gendered.

Now a certain female in the absence of gendered cultural conditioning might be a (1,5,7,2,9). What the culture is going to do, is encourage her to tone down her second characteristic and adopt behaviors that enhance her fourth characteristic in order to "fit in" as a woman. It's okay that she's more "third characteristic" than normal because that doesn't make her more or less "feminine", but the others behaviors will be discouraged.

Now, take a male who strongly identifies with a low score in traits 1 and 2 and a high score in traits 4 and 5. What he would perceive from a young age is that the "women" around him are being encouraged to behave in the same ways that he naturally wants to behave.

Now, this is just my own little story about how this works, and it may be completely wrong. But the punchline here is the idea that if we did a better job of accepting individuals without trying to push them toward traits predicated on gender, we would have fewer individuals who feel like their personalities are better suited for the other gender.

 

[Pup]

Now, this is just my own little story about how this works, and it may be completely wrong. But the punchline here is the idea that if we did a better job of accepting individuals without trying to push them toward traits predicated on gender, we would have fewer individuals who feel like their personalities are better suited for the other gender.

I'm going to turn this around the other way for a minute, as a kind of thought experiment, because I'm not so sure it's traits.

For those who aren't transgendered, and don't have any uncertainty about their gender, what would it take to feel--not to pass as, but to feel--like the opposite gender, 24 hours a day?

Personally, being male, if someone expected me to get cosmetic surgery to appear female on the outside, or to dress in clothes that the opposite sex wears in my society, or trained me to take on mannerisms of the opposite sex in my society, I think I'd still feel male on the inside. If they taught me stereotypically female skills--some of which I actually do have, like an interest in sewing and cooking, I think I'd still feel like "a man who sews," as I do now.

In fact, I don't think there's any trait I could adopt, which would make me feel female, no matter how well I might theoretically be trained to pass as a female in society. I'd always be "a man in a dress" or "a man who had his privates surgically worked on," or "a man who wears makeup," or "a man who stops and asks directions instead of driving till he figures out where he is."

Maybe, maybe, I could try to imagine what it would be like to be a woman, the way an actor might get in character, for a short while, but I don't think it would last, and I don't think it would really feel like "me."

Maybe I'm unusual in that, but it's what has always given me an intrinsic sympathy with transgendered individuals. If I can't imagine any outward thing, in appearance or socialization, which would make me feel male on the inside, I can sympathize with someone who is just as certain they're female (or male), despite society and their appearance identifying them as the opposite.

Maybe a sense of maleness or femaleness is just all socialization, and it would be possible to have a society where there was no male or female differentiation except in genitalia. But has there ever been such a society? Would it even be possible, considering the different affects of testosteone and estrogen on personality as well as secondary sex characteristics?

 

[truethat]

Nope, there are no bags. You will not use any more of your ad hominen, straw men, and verbal tricks to sway me anymore. I have researched the issue and while there are pretty conclusive arguments for your side, I'm still doubtful because the other side has some convincing arguments. There are no "bags" on my hands whatsoever and I am not being pulled down to any side. Nor will I change my mind about this subject any time soon. It took years of research for me to accept homosexuality. I can only suspect the same will be true for the transgender debate. I have a conservative upbringing and while I have escaped many of the negative and dogmatic ideologies of my parents I still have my complete and utter doubts about the subject.

I am only a bigot because I do not willfully and outright agree with you. I have only changed my opinion about an individual's right to pursue their own desires without interference. This conversation has not yet made me change my opinion that this subject is of real controversy or not. And to the TG community it will seem disrespectful, but that is simply the way it is. I'm not fully convinced every option and avenue has been explored. Especially because the science of self-image is in its infancy. And there are many other dysphonias out there including GID that have very little explanation.

At best we have a few cases that suggest it is harmful to force will on someone, but that is in any case. Which is why reformative therapies fail in the first place with any behavior, including pedophilia. Because it tries to force an individual out of their natural preferences. It is clear that only a change in the perception of self can truly have any impact on a person. Desires cannot be extinguished once they are born and must be replaced by other outlets.

I am simply too doubtful of the conclusions of the other side to fully accept this as being a real phenomenon. Being skeptical is not being a "bigot"; it is being an independent thinker. And I choose the right to remain skeptical, which means I do not advocate (nor would I ever) for the harming or prevention of persons to choose their free will.

As for the child debacle, it was clear from the get go that it was being discussed as such. I will stick to my original story and let it be known that what I was arguing against was the child debate. In fact many other individuals on this thread were arguing the same. But they have chosen to ignore you instead of fuel your raging ego and desire to "aggressively" combat ignorance. The same way Christian evangelicals "aggressively" combat ignorant sinners. You are ironically judging me just those who judge you do as well. You are doing the same as those who you don’t like. You are ironically polarizing sides when in fact there are more than two sides to choose on the issue. IN short, you are using the same aggressive rhetoric I hear from evangelicals just with a different subject matter. I top my hat off to Dessi for keeping cool and collected this entire debate. Instead of using rhetoric she debunked a few of my previously held beliefs. If anything thing, Dessi deserves complete and utter credit for changing my mind on things. Her calm and collected approach to this debate got me receptive to many of her arguments. And I must truly applaud her and thank her for opening my eyes somewhat. +1 Dessi. It was certainly not you and aggressively hostile lectures.

I can tell you right now "aggressively" doing anything isn't going to change my mind whatsoever. Only absolute evidence can make me drastically change my mind about anything. It literally took a 5 minute clip from the movie "for the bible tells me so" for me to drastically change my perceptions on homosexuality, even though I have already generally accepted it. This clip took me from neutral acceptance to firm support. And from what I have seen, even with the deaths, and cases of harm, there is simply nothing as solid for this debate.

I am not thoroughly convinced of anything until they find a smoking gun on the subject. And you have your entitlement to get upset, call me bigot, hell pm a few of your buddies and call me a dumb n word for all I care. There isn't much to convince of what the other side is saying is true. And if you view it as willful instead of you not really having heavy support for your side, then so be it.

Once again looooooong posts filled with sweet all nothing. I suppose you are living in a community that might identify you as "thinking outside the box" but honestly the level of education in this post is shatteringly ignorant.


I hate to be an educational snob, but I suppose it's hoisted itself upon me. I will not debate you further since it is a waste of time. But as an online friend let me just say this, just because most of the people YOU KNOW are impressed with your ponderings, doesn't give it some sort of merit in the academic community.

Get an education. sad to say, at 40 I am really beginning to identify those that have a real education and those that do not. For you younger ones who are simply lurking.....yes it is that obvious.

 

[Dessi]

I top my hat off to Dessi for keeping cool and collected this entire debate. Instead of using rhetoric she debunked a few of my previously held beliefs. If anything thing, Dessi deserves complete and utter credit for changing my mind on things. Her calm and collected approach to this debate got me receptive to many of her arguments. And I must truly applaud her and thank her for opening my eyes somewhat. +1 Dessi.

*rolls around chirpsqueaks*

Thankiepyons for the kind words

 

[L.Y.S.]

Once again looooooong posts filled with sweet all nothing. I suppose you are living in a community that might identify you as "thinking outside the box" but honestly the level of education in this post is shatteringly ignorant.


I hate to be an educational snob, but I suppose it's hoisted itself upon me. I will not debate you further since it is a waste of time. But as an online friend let me just say this, just because most of the people YOU KNOW are impressed with your ponderings, doesn't give it some sort of merit in the academic community.

Get an education. sad to say, at 40 I am really beginning to identify those that have a real education and those that do not. For you younger ones who are simply lurking.....yes it is that obvious.

Yet another worthless off topic ad hominem, attacking personal statements instead of disproving central ideas . It has much more with your confrontational style of arguing that really turned me off from your ideas. You'd be better to find another format of debate. I am almost positive you did not sway individuals who were already in a neutral position.

The implicit idea that you have to "aggressively" combat ignorant ne’re-do-wells sounds like yet another Faustian tactic used by the judgmental Christians you love hate so much. To add on top of that, during this entire argument I felt as though you were trying to foist a belief on me. It was almost as if this were a religious imperative for you. I could definitely sense this in your use of warlike terminology “aggressively”, “combat”, etc. I truly hope that you do not interpret an individual’s right to remain neutral as willful ignorance. If this is how you truly see it then I am sorry for you, not for myself. If it is because a person does not side with your opinion that he or she is a bigot, then I suspect there are lots of bigots on your list.

The age an education comments are nearly useless. I consider most members of this forum to be educated and contributors in their own special way. This inherent "snobbery" as you yourself termed, already starts off horrible relationships on this forum. Calling people ignorant, bigots, stupid, dumb, and a list of spiteful words will not change peoples' opinion for your argument.

In fact it is you who needs an education because this entire thread you have been hissing, flailing around your arms, and attacking people instead of disproving any of their assertions. Again, ad hominems, this entire thread you have resorted to ad hominems. I begged you to stop, even times were I was briefly considering your argument I was then subsequently turned off by it from the usage of ad hominems. You just kept and kept attacking people even when they agreed with you sometimes. I seriously looked at some post made by other calmer and collected posters like professor yaffle were you even initially agreed and then out of the blue disagreed and double spoke even after you had agreed with him! I’m earnestly sitting back and saying, what the hell is wrong with this woman seriously? This is the inherent flaw in every single last argument that you have waged in this thread. And it is why I can never take any evidence you present seriously. As I have said before only a few people have kept composure during the entire duration of this thread. (Hint: you were not one of them).



Btw, how many sections of this thread are you willing to send to the ABH section, seriously?

 

[Finn McR]

All of this, and I still hope that all the TG proponents agree that someone who thinks, "I am a runway model," is, in fact a runway model at heart. They might be short, fat, have bad skin, and tons of body hair, but they are still runway models *because they feel like runway models*. In no way would I disagree that to be other than the way one feels sucks. It would be great if we could all be the way we feel. If some surgery/medication//lifestyle changes can effect the differences then great; and there are many TG folks out there who work hard to be who they are. Good for them. But don't wallow in some self-aggrandizing pity/worship party. For years black-skinned Americans were treated as lesser, as second- or third-class citizens. They were not and are not lesser citizens. They fought against institutionalized discrimination and have won gains (but not the whole war). The point, though, is not that being black-skinned is hard (it is), but that it does not -expletive deleted, mods- matter to being an equal person. People are people. And if you can't sell that message, you are losing the fight.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are there any stats on the number of tg men / women who after transition from living as women / men are attracted to women / men?

I'm interested because it has been claimed that gay men have brain structures that are similar to women, while in this thread (IIRC) it has been reported that tg men / women have brain structures similar to men / women, which would seem to be somewhat of a contradiction if tg women are mostly attracted to women.