Results 211 to 220 of 237
-
10-24-2009 #211Originally Posted by rockabilly
But I wonder if Nicole got turned on when Nicole showed you some that sadism?
-
10-24-2009 #212
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 729
Originally Posted by phobunOriginally Posted by phobun
Build a man a fire, he's warm for a day.
Light a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
-
10-24-2009 #213
If I got a dime every time I read an ad with purloined photos I could retire right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjS0AbRpAo Andenzi, izimvo zakho ziyaba.
-
10-24-2009 #214
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 11,814
Most, but not all, transgender women on this board are genetically male, and their bodies before transition expressed most of the secondary sexual characteristics that statistically correlate to being an XY-male. Most transgender women on this board, due to their own efforts, now defy those correlations. What we’ve learned in the past several decades is that phenotype is not determined by genotype and that phenotype is mutable (by extra-developmental means). We have undergone transition because of an intolerable tension between our gender identity and our phenotypic expression. A woman may be genetically XY, her phenotype can be what she pleases it to be and her gender is female. What’s so hard about that?
What hangs some folks up is the fact that gender is a social construction, while genetic constitution is not. Gender is not our only example of a social construction. A paradigm example is the notion of property. Property, in the sense of ownership, is not a scientific concept. There is not physical or chemical bond between an object and its owner. The two of them do not exchange special ownership gluons. There is no scientific test that one can perform to decide ownership. That because ownership and property are social constructions. You own the things you have only because everyone recognizes you own them. Without that recognition ownerships evaporates and no amount of metaphysics will restore it. Consequently it would be fallacy to say, “I’m the first to recognize you own your home, but it’s merely a social courtesy and in all other aspects you don’t own it.” Wrong, because the deed is a certificate of recognition of ownership and that recognition is all that ownership is. Wrong, because social constructions are not mere courtesies. They are stable social contracts rooted in custom and human psychology; some people even mistake them for metaphysical absolutes. Yet, it seems to me, that’s exactly the fallacy engendered by Phobun’s statement:
"I'll be the first to say that I think TS women are women. But it is a social courtesy … to address certain transgenders as female, because in all other respects, they are male."
The gender of a woman is female in all aspects, whether she takes public transportation to work or drives, because her mode of transportation is not a relevant aspect to the social construct known as gender. The gender of a woman is female in all aspects, whether she is genetically male or genetically female, because genetic sex is not a relevant factor.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-24-2009 #215Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
If we define sex based on genitalia, and then only have two sex categories to choose from, then as a classification scheme we can't coupe with oddball situations.
Oddball cases are what would "prove the rule's validity," and in this case it shows the rule isn't sufficient to work under all possible scenarios.
Further, there is another organ in the body that heavily depends on sex, and one that cannot be changed. That's the brain. Brains are very different based on sex. They're structurally different, they operate differently- you can put a male and a female under brainscans and have them perform a common task and find the brain does the task differently depending on brain-sex. IF, for arguments shake, the "but my brain is female" statements MtF trans people are known for is true (this point could be scientifically vetted out at some point in the future), then that means they have brains whose sex is female, which in my eyes is as important if not more important than genitalia.
Someone's chromosomes, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, fertility, endocrine system, and gender/social roles could all be completely uniformly female. If their brain-sex is male, it won't matter- they won't act as a female (and by that I mean in tangible "how the brain does things" way and not gender role fabrications from socialization). You'd have essentially a guy who looks like a girl, has a girl's hardware, and lives as a girl for all practical purposes- but is far from being a girl because of all the ways the brain-sex comes into play.
Same with homo vs heterosexuaL. homo=same. hetero=different. In the strict, literal sense of the terms, if you have a penis and your partner has one as well, that is a homosexual act.
And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
With all of its misery and wretched lies
If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
The Big Machine will just move on
Still we cling afraid we'll fall
Clinging like the memory which haunts us all
-
10-24-2009 #216
OP is fucking lame. Go to a psychologist if you want therapy.
-
10-24-2009 #217
-
10-24-2009 #218
Sarah, its artificially a binary system only, and an imprecise one at best, based on superficial, observable criteria, like any other sort of general classification scheme. If you go into genetics or endocrines or neural or reproductive or skeletal structures, or any number of other less readily apparent markers, it falls apart. But as imperfect as it may be, its the one we have to work within, absent some radical social change. Other cultures, past and present, were more enlightened then we are, with the berdache and the hejra and such, but in the west, its presently 2 genders and only 2 to tango.
With respect to the intersexed, or those sexually neutered, as with transgenders, I would personally have no problem opening the system to additional categories, but the rest of our society is not yet so willing. As you know, for those born with ambiguous genitals, tough, unfair medical choices are usually made, to force the oval peg into one round hole or the other. I'm not aware of too many people with no genitals at all, except through trauma, and then it would be what they were before or how they choose to self express after. Either way, it remains an either or dynamic, no matter how flawed or unfair.
I'm not advocating for this, only for how to best work within it. I think we need less labels, not more. Ideally, it would be great if the only label were human, and the only judgment on relationships were on how well they worked for the people in them. But until we reach that Utopian ideal, I stand by what I said about love and lust and letting those things chart your sexual course, not some rigid social way-points that often only lead to unhappiness.
FK
-
10-24-2009 #219Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre
-
10-24-2009 #220
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Brighton U.K.
- Posts
- 351
Isn't this thread dead yet?