the Espy awards

[ryzno]

Y'all know what I meant.
When a group of people believe a physically born male, can cut off his penis and whatever else is done, but, he(as I said born male!), can not carry nor deliver a baby, and then, call him a woman, that is a problem...
G.E.D. answer adjusted. Have fun picking parts of sentence's as you chose.

EDIT! Cause everyone thinks I'm a dumbass. Females/women with non-functioning, reproductive are women too!!!

 

[TenEightyOne]

When a group of people believe a physically born male, can cut off his penis and whatever else is done, but, he(as I said born male!), can not carry nor deliver a baby, and then, call him a woman, that is a problem...

Why?

Have fun picking parts of sentence's as you chose.

Okay, thanks. Lose the apostrophe.

 

[Famine]

Y'all know what I meant.

Nope, only what you wrote. Unless you provide a video, we're kinda limited to reading - and if it isn't there we can't read it.

When a group of people believe a physically born male, can cut off his penis and whatever else is done, but, he(as I said born male!), can not carry nor deliver a baby, and then, call him a woman, that is a problem...
G.E.D. answer adjusted. Have fun picking parts of sentence's as you chose.

Your sentence still reads as though you are defining "woman" as having the ability to carry and deliver a baby. Which naturally lends to the conclusion that you don't think women who can't do that are women.

You'll need to explain why carrying and delivering a baby is part of your requirement for calling someone a woman when they physically resemble a woman when they were born with a penis, but not when they were not born with a penis. And then explain how you apply it to people who were born with a penis but also a female reproductive system.

 

[ryzno]

This is all I have to say, cause I am not going to go around in circles, getting my brain picked apart, about things I did not say. And this thread is not about the topic at hand.

Surgery/Medical, does not make you, something you were not born as.
If you were born WITH BOTH genitalia, that's a whole different story.
When a male, with ONLY MALE genitalia, can carry and birth a healthy baby with surgically installed reproductive organs, let me know please. I might change my mind.
A female, without functioning reproductive organs is a woman.
If you believe you are something you are not, *cough* going back to Famines post:

"Where's the line? If' we're okay with saying that people who've had cosmetic surgery to look like the gender in their head are actually the second gender, surely we should be okay with saying that people who have cosmetic surgery to look like a cat actually are cats?"

*drops the mic*

 

[TenEightyOne]

this thread is not about the topic at hand.

I thought it was about the Espy awards? Your comments are perfectly relevant.

things I did not say.

Quite right, that would be unfair. Let's concentrate on what you did say;

When a group of people believe a physically born male, can cut off his penis and whatever else is done, but, he(as I said born male!), can not carry nor deliver a baby, and then, call him a woman, that is a problem...

You were so clear that you emboldened and underlined. No confusion there. A woman is a fertile baby-carrier, a man isn't. Understood.

When a male, with ONLY MALE genitalia, can carry and birth a healthy baby with surgically installed reproductive organs, let me know please.

I'll make a note although I'm sure there'll be a thread about it.

If you believe you are something you are not, *cough* going back to Famines post:

"Where's the line?

No line, but a difference. The idea of what a woman should be is a social one, as is the idea of a man. The problem in your argument is that you're failing to separate our use of "he" or "she" for humans identified as one gender or another from our use of "male" and "female" to denote the anatomical construction of any given human.

If' we're okay with saying that people who've had cosmetic surgery to look like the gender in their head are actually the second gender, surely we should be okay with saying that people who have cosmetic surgery to look like a cat actually are cats?"

Cats aren't a gender-subdivision of humans. Humans are mostly female humans or male humans. If a human was surgically reconstructed to look like a cat we'd still call them "he" or "she". In the case of the person who "identified as black", so what? That was her choice. Sociologically it was a peculiar (and therefore challenging) choice, but that was her choice. If she'd shoved a sock down her kecks and asked to be called Brian then that would have been a valid choice too. "Black" is a social construct just as "he" or "she" is.

*drops the mic*

What? What do you mean?

 

[ryzno]

Well I guess the English language needs to be redone. Cause last I checked, male=man/men, female=woman/women.

He was not born with a female appearance as Famine mentioned, until he had surgery. You remember he shaved his Adams Apple right? And just got a set of new boobs.
I was rather clear using a male noun/pronoun 5 times... I hope my new clarification doesn't get me banned.
I'm not going to try to break down what Famine said, in my quote, that you want to question. But his point is rather obvious, ask him.

Good Night.

Edit: I want to know why there should be a gender subdivision? There is technically 3 biological classes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well I guess the English language needs to be redone. Cause last I checked, male=man/men, female=woman/women.

Check again.

He was not born with a female appearance as Famine mentioned, until he had surgery. You remember he shaved his Adams Apple right? And just got a set of new boobs.

To clarify a general thing with this forum software; you should use @ in front of other names such as @Famine, it tags them to let them know you've mentioned them

Edit: I want to know why there should be a gender subdivision? There is technically 3 biological classes.

Because those roles have evolved to be have an important distinction in many societies. I think your own comments on the roles of men and women illustrate that.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

*drops the mic*

 

[ryzno]

Check again.

Your link says nothing about homosexuality.

To clarify a general thing with this forum software; you should use @ in front of other names such as @Famine, it tags them to let them know you've mentioned them

I would have tagged him if I wanted to.

...

You get a cookie! Or do you like cake?

 

[Daniel]

Your link says nothing about homosexuality.

It doesn't need to. Gender identity is not the same as, not is it related to, sexual orientation. There wasn't a need to bring it up.

For clarification, what is your take on women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or men with de la Chapelle syndrome?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your link says nothing about homosexuality.

Why do you mention homosexuality? What does that have to do with anything we've been discussing?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Literally just saw an extended advert for Jenner's new show. The problem is that while it tries to position itself as breaking through the cultural taboo of transgender issues, the whole thing comes across as a vanity project.

 

[GTPorsche]

Of course it's an attention grab. Meanwhile the ones who actually face discrimination and hate don't get any help.

 

[ryzno]

Keep twisting words y'all.

This is the reason I don't try to even respond. Y'all act like a bunch of know it all's.

A male/man(whatever!) who chops off his penis or gets fake boobs, is not a damn female/woman(whatever!), nor deserves a award for it. Take that comment how you like.

 

[Daniel]

Keep twisting words y'all.

This is the reason I don't try to even respond. Y'all act like a bunch of know it all's.

A male/man(whatever!) who chops off his penis or gets fake boobs, is not a damn female/woman(whatever!), nor deserves a award for it. Take that comment how you like.

We're not twisting your words, nor are we taking them out of context.

Also you didn't answer my previous question:

For clarification, what is your take on women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or men with de la Chapelle syndrome?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

For a moment there, I mis-read that as "Dave Chappelle Syndrome" ...

 

[ryzno]

We're not twisting your words, nor are we taking them out of context.

Also you didn't answer my previous question:

Both in my opinion seem to be genetic/biological disorders. I'm sorry if that offends anyone. Going back to Bruce, I don't see how these links are relevant.

 

[nascarfan1400]

ryzno, even if you are correct (which you aren't), why does it matter? How is a Transgender person bothering you? Last time I checked I didn't hear that trans people were telling all cis males to be women because female was superior, so why do you feel the need to not just respect her?

 

[Daniel]

Both in my opinion seem to be genetic/biological disorders. I'm sorry if that offends anyone. Going back to Caitlyn, I don't see how these links are relevant.

You're not offending anyone. They're both medical conditions that are diagnosed by qualified professionals. I want to know what you'd call an individual with CAIS (or de la Chapelle syndrome). And then I'll explain how they're relevant.

 

[ryzno]

You're not offending anyone. They're both medical conditions that are diagnosed by qualified professionals. I want to know what you'd call an individual with CAIS (or de la Chapelle syndrome). And then I'll explain how they're relevant.

With the potential of undeveloped testicles and possible female breasts. I would say Transsexual.

 

[GTPorsche]

That's not what the definition of transsexual would agree with though.

 

[ryzno]

Whatever... My brain is fried...

 

[Daniel]

With the potential of undeveloped testicles and possible female breasts. I would say Transsexual.

I'm digressing here, but you'd be wrong. Intersex is the correct term for someone whose sexual anatomy is ambiguous.

Anyway:

• A medical professional diagnoses CAIS in an individual. Said individual's karyotype is XY but identifies as a woman. She cannot fall pregnant and bear children.
• A medical professional diagnoses gender dysphoria in an individual. Said individual's karyotype is XY but identifies as a woman. She cannot fall pregnant and bear children.

Why is one condition sound but the other one is not?

 

[Famine]

This is all I have to say, cause I am not going to go around in circles, getting my brain picked apart, about things I did not say.

Or rather questions about what it is you did say...

Surgery/Medical, does not make you, something you were not born as.

Define "born as". Is "born as" genotype or phenotype?

Cosmetic procedures to make you resemble something else indeed don't turn you into that second thing, but genotypes and phenotypes don't necessarily always match.

If you were born WITH BOTH genitalia, that's a whole different story.

Why? You just said that surgery doesn't make you something you were not born as, which means that surgery to change your phenotype from intersex to a single gender doesn't make you that single gender. Right here you're arguing that a functioning woman born as intersex isn't a woman even if she meets your previous criterion of "can carry and deliver a baby" because she was not born as a woman.

When a male, with ONLY MALE genitalia, can carry and birth a healthy baby with surgically installed reproductive organs, let me know please. I might change my mind.

I'm sure that'll be relatively big news.

A female, without functioning reproductive organs is a woman.

So what does it matter if they are a female without functioning reproductive organs because they were surgically made into one?

You're a bit all over the place here. I think the problem is that you've decided that you don't like the concept of "elective" transgender without any real thought expended to the situation and are trying to nail down some rationale for it, but you keep crossing over yourself. One minute it's genes and then it isn't, then it's function and then it isn't. I'll help you out because I think this is what you think but aren't expressing:

"An individual who is genotypically Gender A and phenotypically Gender A but identifies themselves as Gender B, who then has elective, corrective surgery to phenotypically resemble Gender B resulting in loss of normal function as Gender A without gaining normal function of Gender B should not be considered to be Gender B.

However, individuals genotypically Gender B but phenotypically Gender A or an intersex state, and identifying as Gender B, who then have elective corrective surgery to phenotypically resemble Gender B, whether it results in loss of normal function or not, should be considered Gender B.

Individuals who are genotypically Gender A (or B) and phenotypically Gender A (or B) who do not have normal function as Gender A (or B) should still be considered Gender A (or B)."

Is that fair?

If you believe you are something you are not, *cough* going back to Famines post:

"Where's the line? If' we're okay with saying that people who've had cosmetic surgery to look like the gender in their head are actually the second gender, surely we should be okay with saying that people who have cosmetic surgery to look like a cat actually are cats?"

*drops the mic*

You're going to want to pick it up again, because the next sentence is "If not, why not?". That aside the context is clear - the paragraph addresses people who would laud transsexuality but deride the concepts of other gender states or those who identify as other species. It doesn't say that because we don't accept cat-kin, we shouldn't accept transgender - it says that those who do accept transgender are guilty of hypocrisy if they don't accept cat-kin.

So if you've praised Caitlyn Jenner's bravery but mocked, say, Jocelyn Wildenstein or Dennis Avner, have a good long look at just how accepting a person you are.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Going back to Bruce, I don't see how these links are relevant.

It's the Espy awards thread, if you don't know why the discussion is relevant then read again

The problem is that while it tries to position itself as breaking through the cultural taboo of transgender issues, the whole thing comes across as a vanity project.

That goes to an important point; it's okay to dislike somebody for being a vain, pompous twit.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't know the appropriate form of expression for transgender people, so I will be using "he/she", "him/her" and "his/her" throughout this post. I suspect that it's rather like Indigenous Australians, where the appropriate form - "indigenous", "Aboriginal", "Aboriginie" or "Islander" - is a matter of personal preference.

That goes to an important point; it's okay to dislike somebody for being a vain, pompous twit.

Looking at some of the promotional material, there's a clear undercurrent of egocentrism:

"I'm telling my story."

"You are normal. / Put it this way: I'm the new normal."

"We're going to do some good."

Transgender rights are probably the last real frontier in social taboos. We've dealt with race and ethnicity, with gender, and with sexual orientation. But the response to transgender issues has been hardest for us to quantify simply because it's so difficult to understand. In this day and age, television and celebrity are a powerful medium to explore that, especially when there is a personal element involved. Unfortunately I missed it, but Louis Theroux's By Reason of Insanity looked like the kind of production that could cover such a sensitive issue (especially since he succeeded with LA Stories when he looked at the lives of sex offenders), and that's the sort of format we need (even if Theroux has the charisma of wet paper towel). But that's not the case here - here we have Caitlin Jenner positioned front and centre, making sure that we know that we are addressing it through Caitlin Jenner. Any understanding that we get will always be in the context of Caitlin Jenner, but he/she is so far removed from the experience of the everyday transgender person that it excludes them. Most of the promotional material for the show emphasises his/her bravery and the pride of making such a positive statement. But it doesn't address the struggle, or the conflict, or the pain or the rejection. It doesn't address the impact on friends and families and the way they reconcile with it. They are traumatic experiences to be sure, but they are things that we need to understand if we want to appreciate and accept and demystify transgender culture. But no, all we get is the "journey" and the "choice" and it all amounts to an ego trip. The irony is that Jenner claims that he/she is "the new normal", but if that were true, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because any announcement that someone is transgender or homosexual would be met with indifference - not because we're callous and unsympathetic, but because we're so used to it and so comfortable with it that it is simply accepted for what it is.

This is an issue that can't be addressed through the lens of celebrity. Or even through the lens of psychiatry (helpful as it may be, addressing it in clinical terms is a little dehumanising). It has to be approached as a social issue, or a human issue. Because as it stands, we stand to learn more about transgender culture and issues through an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (and there are several that deal with it) than through I Am Cait.

 

[Joey D]

I have absolutely nothing against Caitlyn Jenner and I think people should be allow to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy. I don't know enough about transgender psychology to really make an accurate comment about why someone desires to be a different gender or sex from what they were born as, but if that's how he or she wants to live their life, for whatever reason they do it, then who am I to tell you otherwise. Also if someone wants to be called a she when they are biologically a male, why should it be a big deal? I think the take away here should be that instead of "fighting your good fight" you just should just follow the mantra "don't be a jerk".

With that said though, I don't think Jenner was the appropriate recipient of the award. If she was still competing in sports in some fashion, then I'd agree since it would take courage to be a transgender athlete. However, all Jenner does now is make TV shows and within the last year or so may have actually killed someone due to texting and driving.

My vote for the award would have been for Stuart Scott's family or Devon Still.

 

[ryzno]

You're a bit all over the place here. I think the problem is that you've decided that you don't like the concept of "elective" transgender without any real thought expended to the situation and are trying to nail down some rationale for it, but you keep crossing over yourself. One minute it's genes and then it isn't, then it's function and then it isn't. I'll help you out because I think this is what you think but aren't expressing:

"An individual who is genotypically Gender A and phenotypically Gender A but identifies themselves as Gender B, who then has elective, corrective surgery to phenotypically resemble Gender B resulting in loss of normal function as Gender A without gaining normal function of Gender B should not be considered to be Gender B.

However, individuals genotypically Gender B but phenotypically Gender A or an intersex state, and identifying as Gender B, who then have elective corrective surgery to phenotypically resemble Gender B, whether it results in loss of normal function or not, should be considered Gender B.

Individuals who are genotypically Gender A (or B) and phenotypically Gender A (or B) who do not have normal function as Gender A (or B) should still be considered Gender A (or B)."

Is that fair?

I don't know how many times I reread your analogy, but if I understand it correctly, that about sums up my view of the situation.
Now going back to Bruce. I have not watched a second of his transition reality show. But I'm sure no where does he mention the medical disorders @Daniel, provided links to. Thus putting him in the first group.
I'm also sure my terminology is far from correct but, I have a hard time explaining my opinion about a subject that I believe to be incorrect.
As far as medical disorders and sexual preference I have a different feeling.
So group me how you want and please educate me. But I can not guarantee I will change my mind on all aspects of the subject.

I think the take away here should be that instead of "fighting your good fight" you just should just follow the mantra "don't be a jerk".

I am not fighting "my good fight". I am expressing my opinion of the subject. I have no where, told anyone, what they should do or believe.
As far as "don't be a jerk". If my not following the PC crowd, makes me a jerk, I'll be one for the rest of my life.

 

[Joey D]

I am expressing my opinion of the subject. I have no where, told anyone, what they should do or believe.

Thank god I was just speaking in general then and not specifically to you.

But since you brought it up, you don't have to be politically correct to not be a jerk. Really all you need to say on the matter of Jenner is "whatever makes them happy" and leave it at that, you won't be being politically correct and you won't be a jerk, everyone wins.

 

[ryzno]

Thank god I was just speaking in general then and not specifically to you.

I'll use that line next time, when 5 people dissect a post, not directed at one of them. And then proceed to say MY opinion, in a manner, I NEVER said. That's what happens when you post in a forum.
Sorry I was the one person you didn't want to respond.

Anyways, the usual mind game trolls. Everyone has their 2 cents, only one person provided a link to educate the uneducated. Playing mind and word games, doesn't teach me a dang thing. I'm a jerk when people act like jerks.

As a matter of fact, you just made the first ever quote to make my signature.