When did you first realize that you were cis?Is there any Transgender or Transitioning members on BL? I think their insight into this discussion would be the only opinions I would care to read. I am not and do not know any Trans people in my life, and therefore I don’t care too much about it. I’m just curious what actual Trans people. I’m sorry if this has already been brought up here already, but this thread is tldr.
When did you first realize that you were cis?
If no one is cis, then when did you realize that you were trans?I had my first sexual experience (and last) was at age 10 with a boy that was nine. That’s pretty common, but I realized that I am straight and thought that I had got AIDS from a nine year old. I was traumatized by that (thank Regan) for a while, and now I only fantasize about buttfucking a guy once or twice a year. That is also very common, because no one is completely gay or straight. People are usually 15% plus of either sexualities. So no one is completely cis or gay or straight or any of the letters and colors of the homo rainbow.
I’m not, they need a whole new letter for wizard sexual. The sex that I have is impossible to describe because I am constantly in different dimensions living different lives and fucking different things, all at the same time. You wouldn’t understand and that is why that letter needs to be included in the LGBT community. Nobody understands our sexuality.If no one is cis, then when did you realize that you were trans?
So are you otherkin?I’m not, they need a whole new letter for wizard sexual. The sex that I have is impossible to describe because I am constantly in different dimensions living different lives and fucking different things, all at the same time. You wouldn’t understand and that is why that letter needs to be included in the LGBT community. Nobody understands our sexuality.
Oh he most certainly did not do that at all.
"Who would notice if your trans?" I don't think you've seen a lot of transsexuals lol. Unless you just mean someone with gender dysphoria who doesn't attempt to "transition" or "pass," in which case I agree with you. Generally though this population tends toward narcissism and just love to draw attention to themselves (especially MtFs, FtMs are somewhat of a different beast).Who would even notice if you're bisexual or trans if you don't draw attention about it?
"Who would notice if your trans?" I don't think you've seen a lot of transsexuals lol. Unless you just mean someone with gender dysphoria who doesn't attempt to "transition" or "pass," in which case I agree with you. Generally though this population tends toward narcissism and just love to draw attention to themselves (especially MtFs, FtMs are somewhat of a different beast).
This is a good question. It's been called the "toupée fallacy," as in "all toupées are bad because I've never seen a good one." But there are just not enough trans running around for this to be happening all the time and the physical differences between trans-identified and natal sexes are objective in nature even if they exist (like all human characteristics) on a spectrum. Now, passing someone on the street, certainly not everyone is going to be clockable as trans. But looking at someone paying deeper attention to things like facial bone structure, hip curvature, shoulder width and angle, etc., it's going to become apparent. FtMs have it easier than MtFs because testosterone changes them in ways that estrogen does not and because there is probably more variance in men than there is in women for some of these "clockable" biomechanically based factors. Nonetheless, a person's bones don't lie. There is a reason (multiple reasons) that you can tell someone's sex from their skeletal remains. Identifying someone as being trans is doable just doing this when the flesh is still on, even if the MtF is lucky enough to be short and waifish or FtM broad and bullish. That's not even getting into voice, and behavioral tells, of which there are a lot. This is particularly apparent when a MtF is among natal women. Alexis (natal male) and sister Patricia Arquette (natal female), for example, show all the "tells" I just mentioned and then some when standing next to one another:Wouldn't this quite possibly be a perception bias though?
Like, by definition you're only gonna see the people you can see, You can't observe the people who remain successfully unobserved.
So how can you accurately determine what proportion what you see really is?
I'm hardly an expert on this, but I've researched in the past how people determine the sex of skeletons (to the untrained eye they seem extremely
hard to distinguish).
Certainly it is on a spectrum which is why I mention physically effeminate men who decide to "transition" as being "lucky." Someone like Charlotte Clymer (the MtF in the 4chan screencap I linked above and an overall insane person) is correspondingly unlucky. There is a spectrum but at some point there is an absolute dividing line as well. Sex is objective and binary. Even "intersex" persons, who are a vanishingly small minority who some TRAs like to bring up as an argument against the "gender binary", are either genetically male or genetically female but with additional chromosomes.To my recollection, all that stuff is highly on a spectrum too. With some women having more masculine bones and some men having more feminine.
FWIW this is a topic I've researched quite a bit, but of course I bring my own biases to the table, as does anyone. I don't try to hide them, but I try to ground everything I'm saying in objective physiological fact or sociological fact that while subjective is pretty much beyond dispute.I dunno, maybe you're right
"Speculative" in the sense that people aren't really doing scientific research on passing vs. non passing transsexuals (it's hard to do any research in this field due to political pressure) but hardly speculative in the sense that there are objective differences that are almost always visible.but this all seems quite speculative.
They even have surgeries for this, on the vocal cords. Mostly, though, they see vocal coaches, it's a whole cottage industry.Voice is an interesting one. I've never researched in great depth how transgender people handle voice.
Certainly but what cross-sex hormones can do for transsexuals is limited hence the need for cosmetic surgery. Hormones also of course don't change the facts of male or female socialization which has huge consequences beyond the scope of the current conversation, but which for the sake of the topic of "passing" play into both subtle and not-so-subtle cues that something is "off" about a person's gender presentation.I do know though that a LOT of the differences between men and women however are hormonally influenced.
Disagree entirely, genetic sex is sex, definitionally. And all sex differences, including hormonal differences, exist because of genetics, hence why I state that intersex persons are one sex or another, i.e. they either have a Y chromosome or not, despite the fact that these disorders, which is what they are, not "other sexes" or somewhere between the sexes, may have different primary and secondary sexual characteristics and even unusual pairings of the two.Infact the genetic basis seems to be one of the poorest ways to classify sex.
probably would be a good idea (although this subject does have that word "cis" in the title)We do I'm being bad. (mods if you'd like me to move this stuff over give me the heads up and I'd be happy to do it for you since many of them are my posts anyway).
Once this whole subject started becoming very salient in society I decided I needed to understand it better. What really struck me was how quick almost all media, and following that much of society, became convinced that transsexualism represented a sort of ontological reality, e.g. that MtFs are female in an ontological sense rather than just being men who present a certain way. That and how the news covered Bruce Jenner and all that followed. When stuff started getting done to children that was beyond the pale to me, and I really felt the need to understand better. So I've read a lot of the literature and even spent time following trans-oriented online communities so as to understand their thinking better.You do seem very knowledgeable about this.
Yes, both of those are quite well done and done on men that were feminine to begin with. They are lifted from surgeon's websites so they can safely assumed to be some of the best work those surgeons have ever done. The only thing I can say about the "after" results is there's a bit of an "uncanny valley" effect. The hips are weird and the face definitely looks like it's had work done. But yes, they pass quite well. Most don't nearly approach them.Tbh, with those later 2 pictures, I would have identified them as female for both the before and the after.
There's a slight masculinity to the left(before I assume) face, but not enough that I'd have picked it. I've seen women with more masculine features than that.
To understand why they'd drop money on this and go through a lot of suffering (these surgeries seem like they'd be very painful) you have to understand that gender identity disorder has a lot in common with other types of body dysmorphia, although GID is not strictly a subset of BD (there are other issues at play, which differ significantly between natal males, who tend to have psychosexual issues, and natal females, who tend to have body issues and trauma issues.) Nonetheless, in body dysmorphia, we're talking about psychological phenomena which cause people to starve themselves, get unnecessary plastic surgeries, work out to extreme levels, etc. Trans identified individuals have much in common with this. They are often utterly driven to change, or at least escape, their embodiment in their natal sex. Not every trans person is like this, but the classic type is. Some of the types that have become more common, or more prominent, in recent years since the explosion of trans identity stuff on the scene, especially natal male autogynephiles, may not feature this at all. In fact there's a whole debate in the trans community about whether trans identity necessitates body dysmorphia or even gender dysphoria at all.Those surgeries can't be cheap, it seems a little surprising that people would invest in them unless it was more than a mild improvement. But then again, we are always our own worst critics.
Is not that you don't notice, is that you shouldn't care a bit about it."Who would notice if your trans?" I don't think you've seen a lot of transsexuals lol. Unless you just mean someone with gender dysphoria who doesn't attempt to "transition" or "pass," in which case I agree with you. Generally though this population tends toward narcissism and just love to draw attention to themselves (especially MtFs, FtMs are somewhat of a different beast).
You are right in a lot of ways that count here, so I'll try to clarify a bit what I meant in referring to intersex conditions being essentially male or female. They are, and I don't in saying this mean that some of the individuals affected aren't in many functional ways the opposite of what their chromosomes would imply. In terms of the most inherent functional differences between the sexes, most, but not all, intersex individuals are sterile (in those that are not, the conditions are sometimes heritable due to chromosomal abnormalities being passed along.)Ok so I'm gonna reply to this part (I haven't gone over everything else yet).
There are conditions where people are born apparently female, yet have a y chromesome. Part of the chromesome is damaged causing a failure in masculinization of a newborn that otherwise would have been a male.
This is why I said genetics aren't a great way to identify this in the broader social sense. It's crazy to lump obviously female or obviously male individuals, who before modern science would have gone their whole lives not knowing, into the opposite category just to make the definition work. If you gotta do that it means it's a bad definition anyway.
You could narrow the definition to just the important part of the y chromesome. But then I think there are also conditions where that works but other abnormalities cause a failure in masculinization . Uhh I wanna say it's caused by having a born immunity to the effects of male hormones?
Some people respond to this by just saying those people are male, and I just can't take those people seriously. If you're born with visibly female sex organs, think you're female your whole life it's crazy to suddenly say "oh but you're a man cause I need you to be for my definitions to work!
So to continue with from the above, my point is that intersex individuals form no sort of argument at all in the debates about sex and gender. In it they are a red herring. They do not exist "outside the gender binary," they are either males, or females, but with pathological development of their sexual characteristics which can come in a dizzying variety of forms, although generally with only a discrete few outcomes (combine: external genitalia male, female, ambiguous; internal genitalia male, female; normal, underdeveloped; etc.) This may cause them to have very realistic cross-sex presentation (which, as I understand it, would inherently imply infertility) due to differences in the influence on growth of both prenatal and postnatal hormones. This may seem like a fine point, and even a cruel one to make to someone who has been raised as, and is superficially indistinguishable from, a woman (again, an extreme rarity), but the truth stands.Others that they're in a separate category entirely. Which strikes me only slightly less silly. Cause I keep coming back to "but if they were born appearing to be x, were socialized and grew up as x, and wouldn't until modern science have ever known they were anything other than x, how can you with a straight face tell me they're y, or z?"
I've looked into this question before, that question being "exactly what makes someone male and someone female". And all I was able to conclude is that there's actually no all encompassing definition. You can create specific definitions for specific scientific purposes. But that appears to be it.
And here we arrive at the reason why, in this case, I feel it necessary to make this point. To avoid these edge cases. Why? Transgender activists are fond of pointing to intersex conditions to suggest that sex is not as cut-and-dry as it in fact is, or even that there is something "beyond the gender binary." These arguments are fallacies because they are speaking of extremely rare and inherently pathological development as if it were analogous to their having a difference in their subjective experience of their "gender" and the reality of their sex (which is something that some intersex people have been reported to feel. I am not sure, though, if this goes for intersex people who are entirely unaware of their condition. The only cases of this of which I am aware are, IIRC, of intersex children who were surgically modified to appear one way or the other and who's parents kept this from them, a rather different situation.)There's also the whole sex vs gender thing, which seems to try and solve this by saying "my gender is what I say say it is" and then leaving sex to be defined using these silly descriptions that wind up falling apart in the edge cases.
Intersex conditions are, as I said, a red herring. In terms of socializing the women you referenced initially, of course they should be socialized as women (the "duck" solution you mention.) It's a no-brainer. They cannot bear children but women with a lot of different issues have that issue (and when TRAs try to make this an argument for their cause, they have gone from vaguely offensive to astronomically offensive.) The more common case of children born with ambiguous genitalia present a much thornier problem. But again, these are rare situations which have precisely zero bearing on transsexualism and gender dysphoria. That's the reason I feel the need to get so specific about this.Personally I think it's all overcomplicating things. We don't need a one size fits all definition that works in every single instance. We can work this out on a case by case basis and use some common fucking sense. The "if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck" solution.
I don't want to get into this for now [later edit: but I did, oops] but I'll say that as far as bathrooms go, I've always been of the opinion that if people can't tell, nobody is going to complain, and thus the problem is solved before it ever comes up. That said, I just spent several posts talking about how "passing" is an unrealistic goal for most MtF transsexuals, so we're still left with the problem.For restrooms, rape shelters, and stuff like that, I like the quacks like a duck approach. With rape shelters particularly, transgender women are at especially high risk. I think it makes more sense to be worrying about them than the other women.
Now sure, I'm sure you could come up with a specific example with a specific transgender person where if I were in such a shelter I wouldn't feel comfortable with them there. But that's why you use some common sense. If they clearly identify as female, have lived as female for years, you let them use the service.
If they're 6'2 and decided they identified as female a couple months ago... then you don't let them.
Similar with bathrooms, I just don't think it's really that complicated.
Medical situations bring up interesting quandrys in this arena, like the case of a trans-identifying natal female who bled out in an emergency room due to an undetected (ectopic?) pregnancy that was missed because she "passed" and had "male" on her medical records. Less exotic situations would come up with differences in how the sexes present with heart attacks, stuff like that. And that's not even getting into the potential health effects of long term cross-sex hormones, which we know little to nothing about.For medical research you have to define it for the uses of the research. So if for instance it's a study of the Y chromesome, You exclude everyone without one, regardless of how they identify.
Oh, it's pretty convoluted. Especially when arguments get made of a profoundly obscurantist and/or intellectually dishonest character, as happens a lot. You're right, though, it doesn't need to be convoluted. We could just say that some people prefer to attempt to pass as the other sex and more or less leave it at that. Ideally, we wouldn't have any bigotry towards them as such and certainly no incidences of them being subjected to crimes or harassment. Human nature being what it is, that's not realistic, and human nature also being what it is, once this is the ideal (broad social acceptance and a lack of acceptance for harassment) people are going to try to grasp for more, like the aforementioned AGPs invading female spaces. And now people want to try to apply all of these very adult concepts to children. So, here be dragons!I think people make this way more convoluted than it needs to be.
I'm not trying for offense, but rather precision. Frankly my head spins when I read stuff that isn't sometimes. I won't say I'm unaware that people might prefer to be referred to in different terms, but I'm hardly using slurs here. Most who will be offended with the terms I use will not like my opinion to begin with. The term "homosexual-transsexual" is not mine, and I particularly use "heterosexual" here to contrast with it. "HSTS" is from the literature in question, which is fairly old and certainly not infused with modern sensibilities, but, let us not forget, it's written by a man who's life's work was with the this population, including some pioneering work in terms of getting them cross-sex hormones and surgery.You know, you're doing it right now. Basically showing disrespect to the preferences of transgender people by refusing to refer to them by their preferences. You don't have to actually believe it, but deliberately refusing when it requires so little of you just seems kinda rude to me.
I wouldn't say his theories are terribly Freudian in nature, specifically. Old school psychology which is largely descriptive in nature rather than being "hard science", yes. But very valid and useful in terms of descriptiveness. Not holy writ but very useful.And as for Blanchard. I did some googling after you mentioned them last time. Man was I not impressed. Basically represents everything I hate about psychiatry and shows how still contaminated it is by its Freudian roots.
I'm not sure that I see that, but OK. I'd be curious what in particular. If it has to do with the AGP stuff, it's probably more in terms of him describing other people's sexism.I also got a sexist vibe. Not transsexist just regular sexist.