Some errors in Manwich's opinion about Transgendered people...

[ladyattis]

I like to say how cute the joke of the surgical chicken-man, Manwich, but lets be clear on a few points of where you get it wrong, and even how the woman defending you tonight's[8/31/05] email is wrong.

First, periods and genital plumbing don't make girls. The simple fact is that there is a significant minority of women that come under a cluster of physical and genetic deviations that would, in your book, make them less womanly. There are women born with ambigious genitals that usually get turned into men by doctors before they ever turn a year in age. There are also women that are born with XO, which is also known as Turner's Syndrome[the worse cases are like the fake aliens(literally that was a Turner's Syndrome victim) in the Fox Alien Autopsy show], which usually cannot have children, and will usually die by their teenage years. There are also XXY individuals that look and definitely act female, some even have female gonadal(ovarian) tissue at times, and also have the features of both male and female of the species(traces of facial hair and breast development). According to you, an XXY individual isn't a female, yet such types have TWO X chromosones as you require, but yet have ONE Y to produce the pronounaciation of masculine features[secondary and primary]. And there are women born with the inability to have periods, usually due to cancer, or other diseases[genetic and otherwise], some may even have menopause in their 20s, thus losing all female reproduction. The whole point of this is that womanhood isn't always what you are born with, but rather other things as well.



Second, womanhood isn't the same as being female. Being female or male is a standard for human reproduction, but being a woman or a man has no biological bearing. A female can be as manly as Tom Arnold, yet push out babies like a Ford Car factory, cuss worse than a sailor, and be the boss at home work, and the bedroom. Does this make her a man or a woman? According to you, Manwich, she is a woman because you append woman to the sex we call female, yet most of the significant attributes would be considered non-existent with such an idealized[or not] profile that I present. What about a man that stays at home to raise the kids, usually has long hair, a feminine manner, a feminine look, and is the 'mother' to the kids he raises. Does this make the male in this ideal form a man? Clearly not, if we follow the line of logic I'm presenting.

The solution to what I am is that I am a woman, but I happen to be male. This may not be comfortable for most people since we're always told blue is for boys and pink is for girls, and that is how it is for ever and ever. This level of indoctrination leaves little room for what some people call 'deviants.' Yet, people like me exist across the whole gamut of situations intersexed, genderqueer, transgendered, and so forth. If you think that gender is sex, then that's fine, but the evidence is now mounting that one can have a Brain Sex different from one's chromosonal sex. What such a disparity between one's genital sex and one's neurological/brain sex would produce is a more diverse spectrum of identities.

Now, it's up to you to consider the possibilities.

-- Bridget

[bonerjoe]

Hmm.

[yesindeed]

Being a man and saying your female is like being poor and saying you're rich. In your mind you may be something but to everyone else you're full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people who think they're different than the way everyone else perceives them but...read on.

Your womanhood argument is about gender stereotypes. However, just because you ACT/LOOK a certain way that doesn't mean you are that. For example, someone leases a Mercedes to make everyone think they're rich...when they really have to eat potatoes 3 meals a day in order to make the car payment. A feminine man is classified as "effeminate". Transgendered people are on the extreme side of effeminate...but they are not women. No matter how feminine someone with XY genes is, they are still and will always be technically a man. You can dress up your PC to look like a Mac, but it's still a PC.

If you consider yourself a woman, that's fine in my book. But you are not an equal to the REAL women/females. Which is what this issue is all about. If I were to meet a tranny (thinking that she's female), take "her" out on a date and find out later "she" has a penis there would be hell to pay for tricking me. That's the ultimate in deception.

This is exactly what allowing a tranny on the shrine of VALIDATED female listeners is...deception. Do we really want a shrine of liars? Because a liar is someone who tells lies and the defintion of lie is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. If Free Talk Live wants to keep its integrity of reporting the truth, then this lie shouldn't be allowed on the pages of their website.

[ladyattis]

Being a man and saying your female is like being poor and saying you're rich. In your mind you may be something but to everyone else you're full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people who think they're different than the way everyone else perceives them but...read on.

Fallacy, I state I was a woman and male, there is a differentiation. I'll illustrate with a value matrix.

Male	Man	Woman
Female	Woman	Man

The Man and Woman as variables in social structures and real life examples are not based in Essentialist arguments as you purpose, but rather suggest a modal nature to human expression and identity.

I could plot out a complex table illustrating an idealized day of one's modal states from sleeping state to waking state, but at this time I'm just figuring out the BBS' own format codes....

Your womanhood argument is about gender stereotypes.

But your argument isn't prefaced on making man and woman ESSENTIAL ESSENCES to male and female? Come on, be serious on this, how is being a man a given when you can't measure it in biology or any valid science? The fact remains that manhood and womanhood are social and psychological states, not biological states.

If you consider yourself a woman, that's fine in my book. But you are not an equal to the REAL women/females.

Sorry, but I am a real woman by the definition that I exist as a REAL entity. I'm not an UNREAL entity or UNNATURAL, aka Non-existent. Also, this pleading to equality is specious at best considering that equality does not exist in Nature. Every person has their dis/advantages, and thusly each person on particular measures is better or not at certain things.

If I were to meet a tranny (thinking that she's female), take "her" out on a date and find out later "she" has a penis there would be hell to pay for tricking me. That's the ultimate in deception.

And you wouldn't call a woman not telling you she's infertile the ultimate deception. If I date a person, I don't have to tell them a damn thing about myself. You seem to assume dating a person is equivocal to having sexual relations, which it is not by virtue that it's not intrinsic to the concept of dating. If I decide to have sex with you, it would be deception not to tell you how the 'legos' fit in that case, but in the case of mere social interactions it is not related and thus moot.

This is exactly what allowing a tranny on the shrine of VALIDATED female listeners is...deception. Do we really want a shrine of liars? Because a liar is someone who tells lies and the defintion of lie is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. If Free Talk Live wants to keep its integrity of reporting the truth, then this lie shouldn't be allowed on the pages of their website.

There is no deception in my picture, it is what iit is, a picture of a woman. Clearly, you seem to be pleading to Essentialist arguments and to loaded words by calling anything expression of my own identity as deception. Thusly, I conclude that all you're trying to do is force individuals into social roles under the guise of biology when both are mutually exclusive.

-- Bridget

[mephistosa]

Thank you Ladyattis for these clarifications! I could not have said it better!

In fact I am one of these woman you are referring to in the first paragraph. I was born without ovaries but my gonadal (ovarian) tissue secreted enough female hormones (FSH) to ensure my female appearance and sexual development (primary and secondary).

As I have no chromosomal mutation, XO or XXY, the doctors had to perform an endoscopic operation before they finally found out why I have all the female attributions but no menstruation cycle.

My doctor at the university clinic wanted to convince me to take up a plead at the European Court of Justice to finally legalize the 'Egg-Donation' for woman.
See in Europe man are allowed to donate their sperm but woman are not allowed to donate their eggs to sterile persons.
As I was born without ovaries and so am not able to produce fertile eggs the Court could not deny me my right for bearing a child. The doc held a nice 1 hr long speech on this issue as he was more than eager to see his name written on those legalization documents. But... me being me I told im frankly:
"See if I am not able to bear my 'own' child in a natural way, I am not willing to be turned  into a hormone treatment guinea pig nor a sign post for your quest! I can live with the fact off not bearing children and if this need would ever come up I am more tham willing to adopt a child. In that case I will 'only' have to fight with paper work and authorities but  not with life threatening and everlasting hormone pills gulping!"

The only thing I have to fight against now is osteoporosis (declining bone density due to insufficient hormonal production). I get my bone density measured annually and try to keep my calcium/vitamin D intake high through a healthy and balanced nutrition.
Although again the school medics all tried to convince me to undergo a hormonal treatment like menoposal woman, again I denied as the only 'bad' thing that could happen to me is that my skin grows older faster than that of normal woman my age.
Well I am 30 now but but skin looks just fine, only the crowfeet and laughing wrinkles are deepening but otherwise I am healthy and strong.

After the diagnosis I tried to find a supporting group of woman in the same situation but all I could find were groups of woman desperatley trying to get pregnant and breaking all the rules of nature to bring fruit into their loins. I was so turned off by these people not accepting their state that I put the search aside and got on with my life.

I fully accept myself and am as happy as I can be, mostly thanks to my family, my entourage and my optimistic nature!

[mephistosa]

If you consider yourself a woman, that's fine in my book. But you are not an equal to the REAL women/females. Which is what this issue is all about. If I were to meet a tranny (thinking that she's female), take "her" out on a date and find out later "she" has a penis there would be hell to pay for tricking me. That's the ultimate in deception.

Do you want me to tell you on the first date that "Oh dear btw I can't have your children as I am lacking ovaries?" I think that would not be a fine hook-up line, now would it?

This is exactly what allowing a tranny on the shrine of VALIDATED female listeners is...deception. Do we really want a shrine of liars? Because a liar is someone who tells lies and the defintion of lie is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. If Free Talk Live wants to keep its integrity of reporting the truth, then this lie shouldn't be allowed on the pages of their website.

She never claimed to lie! She told the truth from the beginning on so the truth is out and  deal with it.... but that should be the hardest part.... or am I wrong?

[ladyattis]

Careful, they might play an Essentialist argument declaring you a non-person because you don't have the essence of a person[The psychic/qualia zombie argument.]! 

-- Bridget

[mephistosa]

I couldn't care less because I think ergo I am
nobody can prove that I am not thinking ...

[mikehz]

Just as a matter of common politeness and civility, I will consider someone to be whatever sex they decide they are.

[xAlpha]

I'm sorry, but Tom Arnold is not who I would consider the epitome of masculinity.

[ladyattis]

I'm sorry, but Tom Arnold is not who I would consider the epitome of masculinity.

ROFL, the point was to show that one person cannot be the model or form of any concept.

-- Bridget

[dead_hobbit]

*thinks*

I see points on both sides, and I don't want to offend anyone (or suckup to anyone).

So here's my try at my opinion:

The man/woman thing is about sex. Simply that.

A male can't have natural sex with a person who doesn't have a vagina.

A person with a vagina is physically a female. A person with a dick (as opposed to being a dick) is physically a male.

[ladyattis]

A male can't have natural sex with a person who doesn't have a vagina.

Well first you need to define Natural? All sex is NATURAL as in that is occurs WITHIN NATURE[The totality of all things].

A person with a vagina is physically a female. A person with a dick (as opposed to being a dick) is physically a male.

Did you notice how you shifted from man/woman dichotomy to male/female dichotomy? This clearly eliminates the equivocation of man/woman dichotomy with that of male/female dichotomy by virtue of your use of the words.

-- Bridget

[mikehz]

*thinks*

I see points on both sides, and I don't want to offend anyone (or suckup to anyone).

So here's my try at my opinion:

The man/woman thing is about sex. Simply that.

A male can't have natural sex with a person who doesn't have a vagina.

A person with a vagina is physically a female. A person with a dick (as opposed to being a dick) is physically a male.

One problem here is trying to define sex as an act intended only for reproduction. It isn't, of course. Nature seems to use sex as a sort of glue to hold pair bonds together. Looking at the animal world, most critters appear to do it mainly for fun. (Interesting, how the word "recreation" can have several meanings!) For years, I raised racing pigeons. I noticed how the birds would engage in copulations over and over--far more than required merely to propagate the species.

Another problem is that your parameters preclude oral sex. According to you, oral would not be considered natural, even though this has been a common practice at least since ancient times. And if male-female sex of this sort is to be considered acceptable, then...

Lastly, there are, in fact, more than two sexes. We all know about the XX (female) and XY (male). What many don't realize is that there are a number of others. There is the XXY, where the person has very feminine features and an extraordinarily small penis. There is even an XXXY. And others, although I forget what they are called. The point is, it is very difficult to catagorize people. Living in any open society means having to accept others as they are.

I don't say any of this as criticism (I already got chewed out once today!) but only as a point of discussion.

[FreedomFetishist]

This thread gave me much more to think about than I anticipated. 

A line should be drawn somewhere for the shire to hold any meaning.  Obviously those that Manwich wants to include deserve to be there, and I think it is obvious that I have no business being a shriner. 

There is a simple case of someone being fully male in biological terms, but identifying mentally as being female.  My original opinion in this case is pre-ops should be excluded from the shrine and post-ops should be included in the shrine.  However, points have been raised which revealed more shades of gray on this subject than I thought existed.  At this point I am not sure where the appropriate point is to draw the line.  I do believe that when in doubt, one should err towards being more permissive. 

If Manwich gets his definition of female enforced for the shrine, maybe we could setup a Shrine of Manwich Exiles?