SMELTN Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ok I know this thread is getting crazy but I finally have to put in my 2 cents. First off, why are you guys even arguing over this sex change? Kirkburn, you say male organs' , reproductive or not, do NOT define being a man... Then why is she having a sex change to begin with? I mean I know she is probably taking steroids and all, which makes her voice deep, and makes her grow hair and her boobs shrink right? Ok, but there are ALOT of women who have facial hair and have to shave, alot of women who have deep voices and no boobs, does that define them as being a man? umm no. The reproductive organ is what differenciates the man from woman, the X and Y chromozone my friend which she will never have because GOD made her a WOMAN not a MAN 2nd problem I have with this thread is the fact that, ALOT of people are saying, "I don't care what she does, it doesn't affect me". Thats what wrong with our bloody country now, is because everything is about me me me, but if it doesn't effect you RIGHT NOW, then its fine. But let it affect you later on down the road, or your kids, and then you make a big deal about it, ohh but its too freakin late then buddy, bills already been passed.. We are turning into another Sodom and Gomorrah Wikipedia that link Kirkburn. Without even adding the God factor into this, again it goes back to its just not morally correct. I would have no problem with this if she had a medical condition that caused her to have BOTH organs and they removed one. Hell, they could have even "removed the wrong one" because you are first born, you can not say, "I am a man or woman" So 50/50 chance of being correct there. But this isn't the case here. She needs therapy more than a surgery Don't turn this into a Homophobic thread or anything. This has NOTHING to do with Homosexuality. As some have pointed out, once she has the sex change, she will legally be a man correct? Which makes her no longer gay, which also makes her books defunct, and her association with GLAAD false, unless she/he will be a contributor or supporter only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 All, I can say is: hilarious, especially the nonsensical bit about GLAAD. I'm glad to say you're the only one to have brought religion into this thread, and we could have done without it. Oh: and this has nothing to do with location. I don't care what you think about your country or its organisations, it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAID 0 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I linked the intersexuality not because of Chastity Bono, but because of general ignorance of the area shown in this thread. Is that all you got? If someone does not agree with you, just resort to name calling INSTEAD of using facts to project your point. Is that the liberal credo? "Well, I got nothing but my ****ing feelings and no facts... so I'll just call people ignorant. You sir, are the ignorant one if you think you can change a woman to man. I don't expect your answer to include any facts, just your feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I linked the intersexuality not because of Chastity Bono, but because of general ignorance of the area shown in this thread. That the overwhelming majority of people do fall into male or female categories? Some people seem to have incredibly rigid opinions on what "gender" constitutes. I linked it and others to suggest to them that 1). such black/white rigidity does not exist The definitions of these things are pretty damn rigid. Male: an animal that produces gametes (spermatozoa) that can fertilize female gametes (ova) Female: being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop; "a female heir"; "female holly trees bear the berries" Asexual: not having or involving sex; "an asexual spore"; "asexual reproduction" Hermaphrodite: of animal or plant; having both male female reproductive organs Intersexed: one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs Gender: the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles Chasity Bono is female. After surgery she will still be female. 2). people have a right to choose what pronoun they are referred to as No, they don't have a "right to choose" unless they're a hermaphrodite. If they're not a hermaphrodite then the "decision" was already made. They can pretend to be another gender but it will be nothing more than pretend. what business is it of theirs to moralise about what they should do? Perhaps people don't like people undergoing surgery that disguises who they are? "Thoughts and feelings have nothing to do with your biology"? They most certainly do. But in any case, why should whether you are XX or XY define everything about you as a person? Again, that would be gender identity or gender roles. You should actually read the articles you've linked to. They define what is biological (gender) and what is societal/psychological (gender roles/identity). Why should XX and XY define your gender? Because one combination makes you male and another makes you female. It's how it works. I really don't think we have a say in this. You might as well be whining about how you don't have a choice between DNA combinations. Again, if I was White and I thought I was a Black man would that make me a Black man? Would my DNA change? No. If I was a woman and I thought I was a man would that make me a man? Would it change my DNA? No. The information is out there and it's pretty damn clear on the issue. The fact that you don't agree with the scientific classification of gender doesn't make those who do wrong. You've yet to prove that XX and XY don't determine gender.* You've yet to prove that thoughts and feelings can change your penis into a vagina. *Your intersexed article only goes so far as to say that it might be more complicated that XX and XY but it's from a biological standpoint and not a psychological one. However, I think you just don't understand the subject. You want to stick up for transexuals. That's fine. If you support them, that's fine. Telling people that science is wrong because you misunderstood some articles on Wikipedia is just idiocy. Edited June 17, 2009 by Solid Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Tell that to a neuropsychologist ;)That's all I will say. The context was psychology changing biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAID 0 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Solid Knight You rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linsook Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Solid Knight (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again, if I was White and I thought I was a Black man would that make me a Black man? Would my DNA change? No.If I was a woman and I thought I was a man would that make me a man? Would it change my DNA? No. If you physically changed your skin colour from white to black, or black to white, then this analogy would apply. Until then, it does not. Of course I'm not saying what sexual organs you have aren't part of the definition. But that doesn't explain why some here are dead set on describing him as her or her as him, and feel like the only thing that counts is biology. In any case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Inte...tions_and_scope seems pretty damn varied to me. If you're so obsessed with referring to definitive him/her choices, how do you cope with the breadth of intersex conditions? If the definitions are so rigid, at this point your head should explode. The lines aren't even clearly drawn between XX and XY. My reasoning here is that, if biology isn't completely black/white about this issue, why should we be? If a man dresses as a woman, thinks like a woman and acts as a woman, his junk should be everything that defines him? Seems somewhat pointless, and just a little vindictive. RAID 0, there is a difference with suggesting there is ignorance in a thread and direct ad hominems. You should learn that, and if you think it is bad, why on earth did you practise it in return? Additionally, please point out the other people who have posted sources in this thread. I can only count me so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Kirkburn, I think you are drinking to much Koolaid bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you physically changed your skin colour from white to black, or black to white, then this analogy would apply. Until then, it does not. Even though I was referring to your psychological argument. But okay, I'll go with your request. If I was a White man and I dyed my skin black would I become a Black man? The answer is still no. Of course I'm not saying what sexual organs you have aren't part of the definition. But that doesn't explain why some here are dead set on describing him as her or her as him, and feel like the only thing that counts is biology. See, this is why I don't think you understand this subject. You seem to be unable to make the distinction between gender and gender identity. One is a fact. The other is psychological and sociological. It has no bearing on your actual gender. In any case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Inte...tions_and_scope seems pretty damn varied to me. If you're so obsessed with referring to definitive him/her choices, how do you cope with the breadth of intersex conditions? If the definitions are so rigid, at this point your head should explode. The lines aren't even clearly drawn between XX and XY. It's rather simple. First I determine if they meet the criteria for being intersexed. Then I find the specifics of their condition. You do realized intersexed people aren't entirely new genders, right? My reasoning here is that, if biology isn't completely black/white about this issue, why should we be? If a man dresses as a woman, thinks like a woman and acts as a woman, his junk should be everything that defines him? Seems somewhat pointless, and just a little vindictive. That's great and all but it would only apply to those who are hermaphroditic or intersexed. If you're a male or female, like the vast majority of the Earth's population, there is no choice. You are what you are. A sex change operation would only serve as an elaborate disguise. But again, you don't seem to understand what gender is. Gender is the reproductive role of an organism. Dressing, behaving, and thinking, like another gender doesn't change the mechanisms in your body for reproduction. Nobody is arguing Chasity Bono's behavior. They are saying that sex change operations are more or less a misnomer since you can't actually change your sex. Also consider that gender identity and gender roles depend upon be classified as a particular gender thus gender identity and gender roles cannot be a determining factor of gender. Additionally, please point out the other people who have posted sources in this thread. I can only count me so far. 1 - Wikipedia is far from being a viewed as a credible source given how volatile the information on it can be. 2 - Your sources don't actually support your position--they support my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (Y) Thank you Solid Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 For the record, I continue to disagree, but I think we've stopped covering new ground now, so I doubt we'll change either's position. Thank you for the calm discussion, and I'm out for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 1 - Wikipedia is far from being a viewed as a credible source given how volatile the information on it can be. Then i challenge you to create a blatant false article with non credible sources, and see how fast it gets deleted, Wikipedia does a good job on removing bad articles that are false. Have you ever clicked on the sources used in Wikipedia articles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Marge Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you ask me she looks more like a man than a woman, good luck is all I can say. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 17, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 17, 2009 For the record, Wikipedia does a pretty good job at removing outrageously false information or information that have no sources. Anyway, how does this even work? Surely she wouldn't have a functional penis or testes. She wouldn't even be able to produce sperm. What's the point of the gender change? To have a deep voice and grow facial hair? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwjw1 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you ask me she looks more like a man than a woman, good luck is all I can say. (Y) ...well I'm sure the Feminist aren't upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Then i challenge you to create a blatant false article with non credible sources, and see how fast it gets deleted, Wikipedia does a good job on removing bad articles that are false. Have you ever clicked on the sources used in Wikipedia articles? Yes, they do a good job on the obvious things but I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that not everything gets caught in a timely manner and some articles aren't deleted outright but instead are filled with notations about not citing sources or not being up to standards. Yes, I do check the links to their sources although some of their sources are old articles that are no longer accessible. Again, it's volatile. I'm not saying that everything on there is a lie. That's far from the truth but I am saying that the information is easily vandalized and unsourced information can actually stay in an article for days or weeks. That when it comes to citing a source to support your claims Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reputable source of information. Various organizations, especially in academia, will not accept Wikipedia as a valid source. There are various reasons for that and some do relate to money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauhaus Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The context was psychology changing biology. Psychology can change biology. Example? Chronic Depression originated from a traumatic event. However I understand you are talking about anatomy. Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts