"She", not "he", guys

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BrianR

snip--

Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

--snip

I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity? I think many many men would also strongly disagree with you. Yet, in the other cases you describe, a harelip, a clubfoot, I don't think anyone would believe their anatomy is normal or common. How can you support the idea that a set of physical attributes found in about half the population constitutes a "physical defomity"?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by BigV

I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity?

Oh no, V.
Have you been drunk texting photos again?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by BigV

I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity?

Let's take, then, the case of someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, who is XY but does not produce/react to androgens like Testosterone. They would not, then, have a penis, but would not develop secondary female sexual characteristics. Would this person's vagina be a deformity, or not, in your mind? it is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did.
Pam's point is that, in trans* people, the fact that their body did not develop the way it should have (or, if you want to reverse it, their brain/mind/identity did not develop the way the body did, or whatever) means that, while it would be normal for their bodies to have developed that way IF they were a man, they aren't (or vice-versa for trans* men), and so it's an abnormal development of the body.

[BigV]

Thanks for the reply Ibby. I'd like to start by saying I'm not hostile toward you, Pam, or any other trans* people. I also wish to state that I don't know many, though I have had a few casual interactions with a few, probably under a dozen. Lastly, I'm not familiar at all with androgen insensitivity syndrome beyond what you've described here.

So that's a good point to start with.

Originally Posted by Ibby

Let's take, then, the case of someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, who is XY but does not produce/react to androgens like Testosterone. They would not, then, have a penis, but would not develop secondary female sexual characteristics. Would this person's vagina be a deformity, or not, in your mind? it is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did.

From what I can glean from your description here "secondary female sexual characteristics" would mean enlarged breasts, minimal facial hair, relatively wider hips, perhaps some other less dramatically different physical characteristics. When you say "would not develop" some or all or more of the traits above and then ask me if that person's vagina would represent a "physical deformity", my answer is no. There are many people who have a vagina that do not have enlarged breasts, or the other secondary sexual characteristics (adults, of course, not children). Of those people, I would not consider the presence of a vagina in the absence of the other secondary characteristics a physical deformity.

Your last sentence "It is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did." is subjective and presumes a baseline of "normal" that appears to weigh the absence of secondary sexual characteristics more heavily than the presence of "primary" (my term) sexual characteristics, in this case a vagina. I'm not quarreling with *your* interpretation of such a situation, I'm just saying you seem to be emphasizing the secondary and minimizing the primary. That seems backwards.

Originally Posted by Ibby

Pam's point is that, in trans* people, the fact that their body did not develop the way it should have (or, if you want to reverse it, their brain/mind/identity did not develop the way the body did, or whatever) means that, while it would be normal for their bodies to have developed that way IF they were a man, they aren't (or vice-versa for trans* men), and so it's an abnormal development of the body.

This point depends entirely on what your definition of "should* is. "My body developed the way it should have." "My body did not develop the way it should have." What is the frame of reference for what "should be" is? I don't have an answer.

Your thought experiment to reverse it is interesting, and when it's reversed, to my mind, it puts the "should be" reference point in the body, and the brain/mind/identity as the aspect of the person that "did not develop as it should have". It is a small step from there to make the conclusion that the judge did in the story discussed earlier to view such a situation as a "mental illness" or "mental deformity" if you'll permit me to meld your term with the judge's.

The term "physical deformity" isn't subject to a person's brain/mind/identity. If you look at two pictures of a child's mouth and one of them shows a cleft palette it is clear which is the physical deformity. If you looked at a thousand or a million such pictures, there would be no question as to which were physically deformed and which were normal. (Yes, there might be some cases that were.... somewhere in between, oooh... is that just a really high cupid's bow or is it actually cleft. sure. But that is not the suggestion Pam, nor you are making "My penis is vanishingly small and that deformity defines my trans*-ness.) Now imagine looking at two pictures of two different penises. How can you tell which is a "physical deformity"? How can you determine from those two pictures which one belongs to the trans* person? I don't think you can, I'm sure I can't.

Such a statement is an improper use of the term "physical deformity". That's my point.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by BigV

I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity? I think many many men would also strongly disagree with you. Yet, in the other cases you describe, a harelip, a clubfoot, I don't think anyone would believe their anatomy is normal or common. How can you support the idea that a set of physical attributes found in about half the population constitutes a "physical defomity"?

No V.. You misunderstand. I said MY penis, as well as other attributes not common to my gender, are a deformity. Somewhere in my link collection I have a chart that shows how I was supposed to have developed but for a poorly-timed shot of testosterone during my development. My (not your) penis is supposed to be my vagina, my testes are supposed to be my ovaries etc.

I was speaking only for transsexual women. YOU were born male and you got the standard-issue male brain to go with the package. I did not. That's the difference. What is a deformity to ME is perfectly normal to YOU.

Love

Pam

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Genders are not interchangeable. You are what you are between your ears.

I do not go back and forth, as the situation demands. I am a female. Period. That I was born with male parts is fixable now. And when it's all said and done, I will be a woman. With female parts. Period. I don't get to say I'm a man now because the mechanic is lying to me again. Or I really want that job but they don't hire women for it. Or because it's Tuesday.

Transsexuals generally do not go in for anything other than the binary gender paradigm. (I've always wanted to use that word!) We only want to fit in to the existing norm. It's the others on the TG spectrum that want to play games with gender. Live and let live, I say.

I do not agree with discriminating against anyone on the basis of their appearance, even if it makes you uncomfortable. *I* happen to dislike bigots. But do I go around saying they should not be permitted to breed? Or should be rounded up and exiled? Or shot? No. Yet this is what transsexuals live with daily.

Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

The judge ruled properly, yet I still wish it had been someone other than a prisoner, because the resulting news coverage may hurt us as much as help us.

I truly hope that this decision stands, not for the benefit of prisoners, but because it can have ripple effects for us all.

More and more health plans are covering Hormone Replacement Therapy, counseling and even surgery for transsexuals. One day soon, Medicare will cover it too, I hope. That, I believe, will sway a majority of health plans.

Originally Posted by BrianR

No V.. You misunderstand. I said MY penis, as well as other attributes not common to my gender, are a deformity. Somewhere in my link collection I have a chart that shows how I was supposed to have developed but for a poorly-timed shot of testosterone during my development. My (not your) penis is supposed to be my vagina, my testes are supposed to be my ovaries etc.

I was speaking only for transsexual women. YOU were born male and you got the standard-issue male brain to go with the package. I did not. That's the difference. What is a deformity to ME is perfectly normal to YOU.

Love

Pam

I'm sure I do misunderstand, that's why I asked for clarification. I'd like to clarify one of your points first Pam. You did not say "MY penis" as is clear in your post above. Your quote clearly shows you were talking about the the prisoner, and by extension the prisoner's deformity.

I accept your description of your body as your opinion, fine. I struggle to follow through on your word choice, but that's on me. Your penis is deformed? Is it a badly formed vagina? Because it sure looks like a normally formed penis. I haven't seen your genitals Pam, we both know this, I'm using my imagination.

When you talk about the prisoner's penis, you're not talking about your feelings about your own body, but about some third person, someone like me even. If you can suggest that the penis of the prisoner is

a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight.

you could just as easily be talking about a different third person, someone like me even. And that description is wrong. It's an abuse of the language. That's why I spoke up.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less. My objection is the taxpayers getting stuck with the bill.

[Sundae]

Thanks, Pam.

[infinite monkey]

Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

Just to be clear, I didn't suggest it was a mental illness. That was the judge's justification for allowing the surgery to proceed. The problem, then, is not that the person in question is a prisoner, but that the judge negated much of the work done to create an understanding of what gender identity really is.

Of course one might say that those who question it, or don't understand it, are bigots. I do appreciate your post because it adds more perspective than just pointing out 'bigots' and it was clear and thoughtful.

A lot of things need to be fixed in health plans, the prime example being insurances not paying for birth control but paying for Viagra. It is still a 'man's' world in many respects, so every struggle for equality is an important one.

Thanks again for your post. You always provide a better understanding, without anger, without reaction. I admire that.

[BigV]

I... I can't remember?

[Sundae]

DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK AT WORK

Puppetry of the Penis. Video of performance on Absolute Radio.
NB - I dislike Iain Lee, and the cackling woman is dreadful, but this was the best clip I could find.

(Note - not goatse, but if you don't want to look at two men manipulating their penises, again, do not click)

[henry quirk]

Take it on down the road, Big Verbose.

Me: (still) not interested.

[BigV]

did you just tell me to shut up?

I'm verbose, it's true, but I only use as many words as are needed, no more. I was confused by what you wrote and asked for clarification, thinking you would be the best person to explain your own words. You seemed to contradict yourself in that post, just as you do here; if you're not interested, if it is "needless", why did you bother to bring it up.

You may reply with whatever degree of verbosity you deem necessary.

[sexobon]

Do the stereotypes associated with men and women (i.e. women are from Venus, men are from Mars) hold with trans* men and trans* women; or, does the mind-body incongruity period irreparably obscure them?

[DanaC]

The 'man is from Mars, women are from Venus' thing has pretty much been discredited for straight people, let alone transgender.