I have got a SERIOUS problem...

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=GoldScorpion78]I already [I]had[/I] my chromosomes tested. XX, completely female. So if you're looking for some biological proof that seperates male from female, chromosome testing means very little. Having the genitals of one or another (or sometimes both) sex, to me, also means nothing. But let's take into consideration the [B]outward appearance[/B] for a moment. The person in question will undoubtedly dress to their preferred gender, and that, to me, is what qualifies someone to be that gender. If you consider yourself to be female, for example, all your life, and at birth some doctor says you're male, does that not sound just a bit strange? And if your parents made you wear boy clothes, that too is wrong. Now, for me, it is opposite of that.
My point is, humanity as a whole should learn to accept that someday a person will have a baby of one gender that grows up to be the opposite. It isn't a disease, or a mental illness, it's just [I]there[/I] and it will always be there. There's no medicine that will make me feel comfortable as a female. But there [I]is[/I] medicine that will make me more of a male, and that, my friends is testosterone. Which, I'd like to announce, my doctor and psychiatrist are trying to find a way to put me on.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]My point was that you are biologically a female. How you "feel" wasn't my point. I understand that you feel as though you are a male, which is fine in my book. I was in no way attacking you.

However, the way you feel deviates from the norm of human development, and thusly, people [I]will[/I] diagnose you with mental illness/defects/what have you. You really can't blame them for doing so, either -- if you deviate from the norm seen in billions of other people, one can only assume that there is something different in you causing that deviation. It's not that you're mentally insane or less of a person, it's just that there might be something chemically or mentally different about you.[/size]

[Perfection]

[quote name='GoldScorpion78] It isn't a disease, or a mental illness, it's just [I]there[/I] and it will always be there. There's no medicine that will make me feel comfortable as a female. But there [I]is[/I'] medicine that will make me more of a male, and that, my friends is testosterone. Which, I'd like to announce, my doctor and psychiatrist are trying to find a way to put me on.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]
Why do you wish to be hairy? o.O;;

This may be a [i]serious[/i] topic we're talking about, but as Retri has pointed out, you're physically and biologically female. Whatever is going on in that mind of yours differs from your biological self. And, in no way is there anything wrong with wishing to be the opposite sex if you feel it is right, but you were made to be female.

Testosterone is a big step, and I really don't see why you should be taking testosterone...you may feel like that you are male trapped in a females body, but taking testosterone won't help the matter one bit.[/SIZE]

[Fasteriskhead]

EDIT: you can read the bits in small font if you really want, but the important part is the bottom paragraph.

[quote name='Retribution][size=1]However, the way you feel deviates from the norm of human development, and thusly, people [I]will[/I'] diagnose you with mental illness/defects/what have you. You really can't blame them for doing so, either -- if you deviate from the norm seen in billions of other people, one can only assume that there is something different in you causing that deviation.[/size][/quote]
[SIZE=1]As bad an idea as it probably is for me to start up in this thread again: Retribution, I have to ask if you really mean what you seem to be saying here (that "you really can't blame them for [diagnosing you with mental illness]"). Are you really saying that a minority within a larger group has no right to "blame" anyone when they are treated as an inferior, or as damaged goods? Does this lack of blaming extend to make it improper to blame anything else (society in general, God, whatever)? What, are these "deviants" supposed to simply accept whatever is done to them?

I don't think you mean to say this, but it's exactly the result if you follow your line of thought through. Now, obviously you're trying to talk about commonplace human behavior rather than what should really be happening, and as such you place yourself above the "normal people" who would be judging someone as ill. You [i]yourself[/i] say, correctly, that deviancy doesn't make someone "mentally insane or less of a person." But according to you, this is exactly how everyone else will act. Someone deviant, for normal people, is seen as something less than fully human.

Stop me if I seem to be putting words in your mouth. On the one hand, you see in basic human nature the need to dehumanize someone different (and because it's basic I can't "blame" them for doing it), but on the other you see [i]yourself[/i] as being able to know that this person is actually still just that, a person. Now, I don't think this division makes sense. Do you think it isn't [I]possible[/I] for all the rest of these people to know what you know? Of course not. Obviously I think most people here would think it can happen, but just hasn't for various reasons. But: if it [i]can[/i] happen, if people [i]can[/i] change their minds, then why the heck shouldn't we blame them when they don't?[/SIZE]

Big words aside, my point is simply that [i]human beings can learn[/i] (and I'm sure you agree with me on this). The past century in America, especially the civil rights movement, is evidence. We can't be so fatalistic about people not accepting things deviating from the norm when that norm itself can so obviously be changed and widened. In the case of transgendered folks, I don't know that that kind of widening ever WILL happen, but I do know that it CAN.


Oh, and to GS: I wish you luck in whatever you, your family, and your doctors decide, but you really should think about this very carefully (you probably already are, I know). Reassignment therapy, including hormone treatment, is dicey and difficult even in the best cases. It's not going to completely change who you are, and much of it isn't going to be reversible. You're too smart to go into this completely uninformed, I know, but an extra note of caution never hurts.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Fasteriskhead]EDIT: you can read the bits in small font if you really want, but the important part is the bottom paragraph.


[SIZE=1]As bad an idea as it probably is for me to start up in this thread again: Retribution, I have to ask if you really mean what you seem to be saying here (that "you really can't blame them for [diagnosing you with mental illness]"). Are you really saying that a minority within a larger group has no right to "blame" anyone when they are treated as an inferior, or as damaged goods? Does this lack of blaming extend to make it improper to blame anything else (society in general, God, whatever)? What, are these "deviants" supposed to simply accept whatever is done to them?

I don't think you mean to say this, but it's exactly the result if you follow your line of thought through. Now, obviously you're trying to talk about commonplace human behavior rather than what should really be happening, and as such you place yourself above the "normal people" who would be judging someone as ill. You [i]yourself[/i] say, correctly, that deviancy doesn't make someone "mentally insane or less of a person." But according to you, this is exactly how everyone else will act. Someone deviant, for normal people, is seen as something less than fully human.

Stop me if I seem to be putting words in your mouth. On the one hand, you see in basic human nature the need to dehumanize someone different (and because it's basic I can't "blame" them for doing it), but on the other you see [i]yourself[/i] as being able to know that this person is actually still just that, a person. Now, I don't think this division makes sense. Do you think it isn't [I]possible[/I] for all the rest of these people to know what you know? Of course not. Obviously I think most people here would think it can happen, but just hasn't for various reasons. But: if it [i]can[/i] happen, if people [i]can[/i] change their minds, then why the heck shouldn't we blame them when they don't?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[size=1]God Almighty, Fasteriskhead...

You certainly were putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying a minority should accept inferior treatment -- the majority shouldn't be treating them as second-class citizens in the first place -- I'm saying that [b]you and everyone else would consider something outside the norm if it didn't conform to the norms set forth by billions of other people exactly like yourself.[/b] It's not like this is revolutionary here -- take blindness for example. If you saw a blind person, of course you'd think they're not the same as everyone else. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. I think you mistook me for thinking that the blind man's difference is bad, which I do not.

All I'm trying to say is that when you look at billions of people, and they all behave the same way as you, you'd consider it 'normal.' Now, if a person existed outside of that norm, you would of course consider them a deviant from that norm, solely because they are not the same as other humans whom you have met.

It is a human reflex to consider something different [i]painful[/i]. My parents, for example, live within a very tight routine. They have their cups of coffee, go to work, come back home, and take care of me. It would be [i]painful[/i] for them to be forced off to work without that cup of coffee. And I really couldn't blame them for being annoyed with the break in routine. Change is painful for humans, and you can't blame them for thinking so. You can, however, blame them for their response to that change. Likewise, it will be normal for a human to consider GS 'different' and even 'strange.' You can't blame them for thinking that. You can, however blame them for thinking that GS is 'subhuman.' Perhaps the mental illness reference was a slightly off-kilter with what I was trying to say, but not by much.

Basically, stubbornness is something you can blame someone for, but human mental reaction you cannot. It's a subconscious thing that must be subdued. The failure to accept those different is a huge failure indeed, however it's not a failure to think something foreign is strange.

Whether you consider someone deviant less of a person is a completely personal issue. I consider gays deviant from the norm, for example, but they are just as human as I.

I hope that covered all the bases. And jeez, Fast, you make me fight for every point. :3[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

Thanks for responding and clarifying me :animesmil. And actually I don't think I misread you very badly, except in thinking that you were placing a division between yourself and everyone else. Thankfully you've withdrawn the major comment I was bristling at ("...people will diagnose you with mental illness/defects/what have you. You really can't blame them for doing so, either..." to "Perhaps the mental illness reference was a slightly off-kilter with what I was trying to say..."), so we are not really at odds here. Well, we are on the biology thing I guess, but we've covered that at length.

Just one more thing, though. You say: "It is a human reflex to consider something different [i]painful[/i]." This isn't always true, as you know. I could, for example, be dragged to a restaurant I've never heard of, get served something I've never seen before, and truly enjoy it. Then, of course, there's the people we've all met who are always interested in chasing novelties.

The [i]problem[/i] with all this is that whether a difference is a burden or a novelty, it's still not at the point where I can interact with it in a "normal" everyday way. You mention finding gays and the blind "different" - but, what if I was able to perceive them as something totally usual and routine? I don't think the problem is "subduing" a subconscious impulse to be shocked so much (or at least, I'm not sure I'd put it that way) as it's finding a way to expand the everyday of our lives to a point where what was once "abnormal" now barely catches our attention, and so integrates itself seamlessly into the way we live. Of course, we're already doing this every day without really knowing about it. And, if you're up for something more weird, I guess you could also maybe pull off the reverse (everything everyday becomes abnormal); I've heard some controlled substances are very good at this.

EDIT: Oh, I was going to respond to the :3 part too! Thank you for putting up with me; it's always nice to have someone good to argue with.

[[Sound_Nin]]

I should think the problem is that people [I]should[/I] find gays and the blind usual and routine but a lot of people don't. That's the problem with people these days... too conservative. Look, I have nothing against conservatives and republicans... wait... that's wrong, I have EVERYTHING against them. But take no offense.
If we are to evolve further, we must accept each other as HUMAN, whether we're gay, straight, black, white, blind or deaf. Or anything else for that matter, and I'm just not seeing it in the near future.
I don't think I have a "condition" I would much rather call it a birth defect than a sickness. And that's what it is, a birth defect. I was a baby girl that should've been born a baby boy. If science can correct other birth defects, then why not this one?

[Japan]

[COLOR=Indigo]We are all humans, no matter what our appearance, sexual preference, whatever. But there are in fact minorities such as homosexuality and so on. You'll be looked down upon by people different than yourself and you'll just have to get used to it. I am not pulling this out of my bum here. Though I may be straight. I do understand that being misunderstood sucks and you'll just have to grin and bear it. So get used to it.[/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

Japan seems to have taken up the same point I mistakenly accused Retri of making. Anyways, I won't repeat my previous post against the idea of "accepting" majority derision. I will say, though, that I don't think any of us are so far removed from the March On Washington that words like "justice," "brotherhood," and "freedom" (which MLK repeats to the point of nausea) don't still have some kind of meaning. However (as a side note), in the current political climate I think very few people get beyond mere empty sentimentality or dismissive cynicism to seriously try to understand what those words are saying. Too much political discussion today is just wrestling in the dark.

GS - I agree with everything you've said, although I'm a little tempted to speak out for the (very few) decent people who also happen to be card-carrying republicans (I'm subletting from one, for example). I worry a little when you talk about getting "corrected," though: it's fair to talk about being born the way you were as being a "defect," but it's not a defect which is going to be simply "fixed" by reassignment therapy. You're a living being, not a Honda that can get its engine swapped for a new one. Even if science developed to the point where a [I]full[/I] genetic and physical transformation was possible (probably won't happen in our lifetimes), that still wouldn't go back and take away all of the years you spent living as a girl. Probably you're already thinking like this, but just to be clear: I don't think the question should be one of whether or not to get "fixed," but rather whether this treatment is going to give you a more meaningful and better realized life [I]as you are right now[/I]. Or, better: if you take a new direction on the path that you're already on (and have been all your life), do you think this direction will be a brighter one? My friends who've gone through reassignment haven't regretted it, but there are no guarantees and it's certainly not a quick fix. Know what's possible and what isn't before you decide. ;)

[Retribution]

[size=1]For the record, I have nothing against those different than me -- after all, diversity is the spice of life.

All I was saying was that people naturally recoil away (instinctively) from the uncertain, unexplored, and different. If I were to see two men making out on the subway, I wouldn't sit next to them -- not because I hate them, but because I'm not used to seeing that kind of thing. I think that's the whole point I was trying to make. You can't really blame people for having that 'uncomfortable' reaction -- it's what they do with that reaction that counts. If they call those two guys "fags" and make fun, they are wrong. However if they just sit somewhere else, that is completely acceptable.

So uh, good luck with whatever you choose to do with your life. I hope you are satisfied with whatever happens. :)[/size]

[Drix D'Zanth]

What a wonderful discussion! I think you are all asking very relevant questions that the scientific community (neuroscience, specifically) is really trying to address. Earlier this semester I had the opportunity to attend a few seminars concerning hormonal and morphological differences, and a second focusing on the psychology of sexual orientation. Both were very recent studies, and I think we?re starting to break a lot of new ground, but you would be surprised how [i]little[/i] we still know about the way we tick.

It?s admirable that you are attending therapy. I am surprised that you were willing to try this route, as most people view therapy as a very intimidating thing. I admire people that are willing to seek thorough introspection; as those people are few and far between. I hope that works out for you and helps clear up some of your confusion.

Fasteriskhead, I think your intentions (however verbose) are good. But don?t get retribution wrong. He is right, issues like this are extremely rare (unlike menopause, which you mentioned in your second post as being a rarity? You know, every woman goes through it, right?). And gender confusion like this is far from normal. Most people are heterosexual and most people have no problem aligning with that sexual orientation. A lot of people take to that statement with some hostility. But is being different all that bad? There?s nothing wrong in pointing out someone is of the minority.

Instead, let?s let GS?s questions serve as an incentive to some thoughtful analysis. As I mentioned previously, I attended a seminar examining post and pre-zygotic hormone influencers on brain morphology and behavioral patterns in mice. Researchers recognize that the most powerful influencer in the sexual development of mice is during gestation. In swapping estrogen with estradiol ( the male hormone, it is metabolized testosterone) the researchers were able to raise female rats that exhibited entirely male behavior. The same was accomplished using male rats (in exhibiting female behaviors). Researchers also tried reversing the hormone therapy following the previous treatment with mixed results. One thing was certain, once mice reached sexual maturity, there was no going back. The rest was just about different physiological differences in areas of the mouse brain that explained some of the gender behavior; but that?s pretty complex stuff and I?m almost rambling as much as Fateriskhead.

Humans are a bit more complex though, and we aren?t entirely in the know when it comes to what areas of the brain are totally different. We do know that there are vast differences. Not only that, there is ongoing research suggesting that during our brain?s development and even following ?maturity? we can significantly alter our physiology. That is, with a big change (such as a trauma, or neurotransmitter imbalance) our brain can re-wire itself and change significantly.

So GS, while you are certainly biologically female, there may be concomitant factors when you consider your gender identity from a developmental perspective. You say you feel like a man. I would like to understand what you mean by that. Do you say that because you are attracted to women? Is it an aggressive personality usually associated with being masculine? Do you feel like ?one of the guys?? I?m just curious. I?ll talk a little more about understanding one?s sexual identity (the second seminar I attended) after you all have a chance to digest this info.

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Fasteriskhead, I think your intentions (however verbose) are good. But don?t get retribution wrong. He is right, issues like this are extremely rare (unlike menopause, which you mentioned in your second post as being a rarity? You know, every woman goes through it, right?). And gender confusion like this is far from normal. Most people are heterosexual and most people have no problem aligning with that sexual orientation. A lot of people take to that statement with some hostility. But is being different all that bad? There?s nothing wrong in pointing out someone is of the minority.[/quote]Err, I was kidding on the menopause thing. :D

Thanks for the reply! And I should be more precise about what I'm saying, I think. My point, if I can sum up, is that in certain situations scientific definitions of male and female completely contradict the average, everyday sense that we have of those words. These situations are [i]rare[/i], yes, but they [i]still happen[/i], and saying that we shouldn't worry about them is a little bit like saying that we shouldn't bother with relativity because in most situations classical Newtonian physics works just as well. There's a difference between pointing out that someone is an extreme minority and saying, "Oh well, our current definition works pretty good [i]most[/i] of the time, so why change it?" The history of science is the history of paying attention to the exceptions.

Now, don't mistake me, the last thing I'm saying here is that genes are a huge lie and that everything is socially constructed (which I've been accused of before; there are people who will actually argue this, though, and usually they're morons). In normal cases, certainly, the old definition of an XX genotype leading to a female phenotype and an XY genotype leading to a male has no problems. But, with my very longwinded other posts, haven't I shown that in very special cases the words "male" and "female," used in whatever biological sense, are stretched so far as to be nonsensical? Biologists sometimes like to make a distinction between gender (male and female in the social sense) and sex (male and female in the genetic sense). All well and good. But I suggest that we would make a huge leap forward in the careful use of language if, in determining and naming a genetic sex, we just totally dropped those words "male" and "female" altogether. They're too loaded, they're prone to abuse, and they're often inexact. What, exactly, does "male" say that isn't said more precisely by 46,XY? Ditto for all other karyotypes. And then you'd be able to talk about these irregular cases (47,XXY and 45,XO etc.) without having to go through the gymnastics of fitting them into an either/or, male-or-female model which, I think, does a completely crappy job of accommodating them.

Unless, of course, we've gotten so used to using the words "male" and "female" in the genetic sense that it just seems like too much trouble to get rid of them (especially because of just a few thousand irregularities). There's not much I can say against convenience and force of habit, except that biology [I]has[/I] been able to kick that kind of thing before.

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=maroon]It's worth noting that some... "perculars" vary with region, race, etc. Take the "penis at 12" phenomenon, where a person who has ambiguous genitalia suddenly becomes a completely normal male at puberty. The good stuff descends, wang is prominent, and so forth.

Of course, the tribal society where this happens has social habits that accomodate this possibilty and so there is no psychological trauma or problem for the child. He becomes a perfectly normal guy, has kids, etc.

I'm just trying to add that, while the numbers are relatively low compared to - say - six billion people, I think it's still worth addressing because, however small, it helps each individual - even people distinctly male or female - live their life.[/COLOR]