# I don't know ... sensitive



## SueC (Jun 24, 2019)

There is a topic I have been wanting to discuss for a while, and tonight I'm here to do just that. I have touched on this before, but not so much in depth. I'm not sure this isn't writing-related, but we'll see.

Last week I was in Chicago with two of my daughters and we were lucky enough to visit one of their cousins, my brother's son. We hadn't seen him in many years. He has a 12 year old daughter, the same age as some of my granddaughters, and there was a lot of talk about the fun of having daughters that age in the house. Then he asked a question that sent a bit of a ripple through the conversation and left me as the odd man out.

He asked my girls if they were experiencing any issues with gender identity in their kids' schools, or was this just Chicago? He said his daughter's best friend has chosen a pronoun to be known by ("they") and becomes extremely upset if her parents use "she" or "her," instead of "they." She has also chosen another name for herself ("Cass") and won't allow anyone to call her by her given name, _Rachel_, or she gets angry. Then my youngest daughter, from Minneapolis, talked about a boy that has gone to school with my granddaughter since kindergarten as a girl. He wears dresses and has long hair. He is experimenting with makeup like other 12 year old girls and is invited on sleepovers with the girls. Heidi showed us a picture of five girls sitting together and I couldn't pick him out.

I said I didn't care what kind of sexual activity a person wants to engage in during their life, but if a baby is born with boy-parts, he's a boy. Same for a girl. Sadly, my daughters took that as me being critical of the whole business, not being accepting or kind. So, of course, I tried to explain that I just didn't understand it, that I wasn't being critical at all, but you know what happens when you get defensive. 

So then tonight I was watching the news and there was this little blurb about people being able to go back and change their birth certificates to reflect the gender they believe they are, if the certificate had it wrong. That's when I decided to post here.

In no way do I want to offend anyone. I am "old school," and just would like an explanation for what is going on with parents and young children these days. Is this a phase, or a real evolution process of gender identity going forward? I had heard a story years ago, of parents of a baby who told the interviewer that they were waiting for their child to grow up enough to tell them what gender he or she was.

Are any of you parents of school-age children who are making these choices? What do you think? Nothing but love and compassion in this heart, by the way, and thank you for any response.

Additional info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24972420


----------



## Alpine (Jun 25, 2019)

The modern thought is that gender and sexuality can be broken into 4 parts.  No longer are boys simply attracted to girls, or vice versa.  Instead, we have 4 dimensions along which any person may identify (select), and which may also change over time:

Sex: refers to biological parts

Gender: Socially constructed identity of man vs woman vs other, meaning expectations/roles/responsibilities/behaviors/relationships

Physical attraction: the kinds of people who you are physically attracted to

Emotional attraction: the kinds of people who you are emotionally attracted to


So you can see that this creates some situations that "old school" people would find confusing.  A person could be born with boy parts, but wants to wear dresses & makeup, is physically attracted to the muscular man-type body, but emotionally attracted to independent women types (ie a bi-sexual woman in a man's body).  Or, a person could be born with girl parts, undergo a sex-change operation, and is now physically & emotionally attracted to women (used to be a lesbian cisgender woman but is now a straight transgender man?).  Or, maybe a person has girl parts, identifies as a boy, and used to be attracted physically and emotionally to boys, but now is emotionally attracted to girls as well.  Etc etc...  As part of this, some people consider it offensive to use gendered pronouns to refer to a person who does not identify as that gender, imagine being constantly referred to as "he" when you are clearly a woman by the traditional definition.

The feeling of being in the wrong body or growing up in the wrong gender construct is called (I think) gender dysphoria.

Additionally, some people go further in their expression of self, and other expressions of dysphoria, by identifying as cross-species (otherkin: fox-kin, tree-kin, etc) or other non-human component.

Personally I'm not sure if it's occurring due to a new, deeper understanding of humanity, or a lack of understanding of humanity


----------



## CyberWar (Jun 25, 2019)

Thankfully I live in one of those unenlightened and barbarous nations where there are still only two genders corresponding to biological sexes, and a small minority of gender-confused people who are clearly unwell and best directed to psychiatric treatment. I sincerely hope I will never live to see the minds of children in my country poisoned with this gender theory garbage, and I'll definitely suffer none of that crap in my family.

I think it is absolutely wrong to humour the delusions of those unfortunates who genuinely suffer from this "gender dysphoria", and downright criminal to promote that or the idea that you can change your gender as fancy takes you as normal to young children. The incident that the OP describes is a shining example of the results. I think parents should take every effort to instill healthy gender identity in their children and instruct them into healthy gender roles, as opposed to accomodating whatever garbage their pinko teachers have been drumming into their heads lately.

But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant hick from the ass end of Eastern Europe, which I guess by definition puts me only one step below a goose-stepping Nazi.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 25, 2019)

I suppose difficulties set in when on one hand this is the view, but on  the other, for better or worse the person in question simply doesn't feel, identify, or  consider themselves the gender they're born as. If a baby is born with  boy parts but a girls brain, what are they? Is a person their reproductive parts? Their brain? Something else? Their whole body? All of the above? 

I completely understand the confusion around this. It is a confusing issue and there's los of emotive debate which can easily make things worse imo. To your question:



> Is this a phase, or a real evolution process of gender identity going forward?



I think it is part of societal evolution, like universal suffrage. If, for example, people are killing themselves because they don't feel accepted, then something ought to be done about that. But by the same token, anything new - new modes of thought, new expressions, new ideas - shouldn't be taken (or put forward) as a replacement for the old way but an addition to it. Issues tend to set in when one side wants to declare themselves the "correct" way, or wants to be seen as the one with the answer. Often there is no answer. Much better to have this sort of conversation.

My daughters don't seem to have issues with identifying as girls but if they did I would support them - I'm kind of indifferent to how people want to term themselves. But - I expect I would also feel a sense of ... I dunno, bereavement, almost - at the passing of the child they were. But then again, chances are I am going to feel that anyway as they grow. It's a challenge for me, it's a challenge for them. I can try and keep things as they are or I can grow and change alongside them.

As for those parents who were going to wait to tell their child what gender he was - I mean, that's up to them. And it's just one case - think about all the other parents who don't wait. If they can make that work for them, fine. Personally I couldn't, not because of some moral blocker but it's not my style and I just don't think I'd do a very good job of it. For me, knowing myself, I would take a steer from the child itself - do they act in a more feminine way, or a masculine one - and go from there. As it is, my childrens' reproductive parts and their brains seem to be the same and that's what I am used to. I like to think that if my daughters were more boyish or I had a son that was more girly, I would be used to that too. 

Good q


----------



## Bayview (Jun 25, 2019)

I'm not sure I understand, either, mostly because I don't really believe in the idea of "male" or "female" brains. So it's hard for me to understand when someone says they were born with a male body (totally clear to me) but a female brain (what is a female brain?).

That said, I don't think my inability to understand something should in any way trump someone else's experience. I don't understand advanced astrophysics, either, but that doesn't mean the subject doesn't exist!

I'd be happy to see society as a whole easing off on gender distinctions (these stupid "gender reveal" parties people throw, having kids in kindergarten line up according to whether they're boys or girls, etc.) It feels like this would make it easier for someone who feels like their gender doesn't match, because there'd be less emphasis on gender altogether.

Barring that, though? It's none of my business, really. It's a matter of common courtesy to refer to someone by the name they choose, so of course I do that. Pronouns? Same thing, although I REALLY hope we come up with something tidier than the singular they/them. It doesn't hurt me in any single way if someone wants me to treat them as members of a gender other than the one assigned at birth, so why on earth would I think it's my right to judge, get angry, or even comment on it? None of my business.


----------



## SueC (Jun 25, 2019)

I appreciate all of the insight. I knew if I brought it here, I would be able to get more of a sense of what is going on. 

From Bayview: 





> It doesn't hurt me in any single way if someone wants me to treat them as members of a gender other than the one assigned at birth, so why on earth would I think it's my right to judge, get angry, or even comment on it? None of my business.



It's the knowing, That's important. You can't take back all the times you referred to someone as a "he" when he preferred "she" or "they" if you weren't told, right? And wouldn't that be a transition? Wouldn't you want to understand why? Maybe not, but personally I like knowing motivations. It's just part of my makeup and I think it has to do with being a writer. How do we incorporate _this_ into a story without knowing what's behind it?

From CyberWar: 





> I sincerely hope I will never live to see the minds of children in my country poisoned with this gender theory garbage, and I'll definitely suffer none of that crap in my family.



What I do find troubling is the young children who seem to be expected (by parents) to make decisions on who they are. Most people have to go through years of trying to understand themselves, their own bodies, etc. before making decisions about who they are. Remember the teen years? Why has this changed? CyberWar, part of me thinks its "garbage," too. I've had four children and eleven grandchildren and all I can remember about my kids growing up is how much fun they could cram into a day. As they got older, they started coming into their own, but also discovering who they are and what they are capable of. Gender issues never came up, so I have no experience that would make me able to understand this new trend.

From bdcharles: 





> My daughters don't seem to have issues with identifying as girls but if they did I would support them - I'm kind of indifferent to how people want to term themselves. But - I expect I would also feel a sense of ... I dunno, bereavement, almost - at the passing of the child they were.


 
Me too, bd. From what I can tell with the conversation with my family in Chicago, this issue came up out of the blue, with no indication (at least from his daughter's vantage point). It's almost like a trend, or a fad (attention-getter?) to suddenly get mad if your parents don't do what you want, like calling you by a different name than they gave you, to insist they refer to you as "they." And because this is coming from children, there is none of the maturity or understanding that comes with these requests. They are kids; they want what they want and that's it, and you expect that from kids.

Thanks for a great discussion. It has helped.


----------



## Darren White (Jun 25, 2019)

Sue

This is an issue that goes beyond a discussion about gender as in transgender, or gender fluidity.

Not to criticise you, just to give you something extra to think about, I would like to encourage you to read about *intersex*:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

And then look back at what you said about being born with female or male parts.
Yes, on one end of the spectrum there are very male, and on the other end very female people, but there is a whole area in between. 
I am very happy with the changes in view about gender.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 25, 2019)

For 99 percent of people this is not a personal issue. I can see and identify a male and/or a female by their physical attributes. I can't tell what's in the their mind. There are very few crossovers. Most are either one or the other. 

That being said there are now those that claim many different identities, even some that are non-human. So question: if someone wishes to be identified as a rock, a dog, or a toaster,  is that crossing a line? To not refer to them as they wish to be reffered to is now considered hate speech. Hate speech implies promoting hate. If I see an obvious human and they tell me they are not and insist they be reffered to as something else, am I a hater for not doing as they wish? If I tell you to refer to me as Lord Kevin, King of the known universe, and I am apparently absolutly convinced that that is what I am, is that crossing the line? 
Are you a hater if you don't do as I ask?

...
I once knew a boy named Bobby. I call him a boy because he was born male, physically. That much was obvious. Mentally, I believe he was female. That became obvious after a short period of time. I was six, too. 

How did this manifest itself? Well, he didn't cross dress. This was a long time ago and such a thing was not acceptable for a 6 y.o. 
But he threw like a girl, spoke like a female (not with a high voice, but the _way_ he worded things), his physical mannerisms were to the female side.

It's strange, because most things are neutral, but Bobby was a girl. Everyone knew it.

I don't think he wanted us to call him a girl. I don't think he was offended at all at being reffered to as a he, or a him. In fact, any mention of anything about his gender, or anything about him at all personally, and he let us know that he didn't like it. 

He was larger than average, and had a hard, practiced kick (literally, he would kick you with the toe of his cowboy boots; leg, nuts, stomach, one hard wallop. And if that wasn't enough, he'd do it again).

I guess what I don't understand is the offense. If you are born a certain physical type- male, female, human- why take offence because someone refers to you by that? If you happen to be something different on the inside, so what? I suppose if someone said Hey, my name is now Barbara, I'd go with it. But I don't see the hate there when someone refers to your physical attributes. You're a whatever-you-are on the inside (if you say so) but you were still born with a physical body.

Of course there are those that are trying to offend other people, but that is different. In general, for 99 percent of people, their gender is what it is: not an issue.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 25, 2019)

I think this is a problem of not having warfare on our continent in a very, very long time. Kids no longer know what it means to be poor, hungry, to live with holes in their shoes because they can't afford anything better... It's funny how scrapping for survival, often not knowing where the next meal is coming from, seems to bring things into very sharp focus. Suddenly, there's no longer time for the genital equivalent of pointless navel-gazing. There's no longer all of this free time that kids seem to have, to vacuum up every harebrained experiment dreamed up by pop psychologists and sociologists, nor the copious amounts of free time that these internet-addicts spend inside their heads. Their damn brains aren't even completely developed until around the age of 28.

Sorry... This whole fad of screwing around with one's gender and identity and dysphoria and screwing up LEGAL documents, when these kids are mostly in need of true psychotherapy. (Not the new age, feel-good, I'm okay you're okay crap, or, "Hey, man... Whatever you want to do! Groovy!") 

The whole thing makes me roll my eyes so hard, I think I see parts of my brain...


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 16, 2019)

I revise my previous statement. I've been enlightened, and after much thought, realized that I am, indeed, a toaster oven.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 16, 2019)

Ooo, such cans of worms here. We all seem to be a civilized lot, so I'm going to try to share some here. I'll probably do it badly. I wrote a really long report on sex determination and do hold a degree in biology, so if I fly over anyone's head, I'm not trying to and will gladly explain anything.  


*"Male" and "Female" brains*
While "male" and "female" brains do exist, this has to do with the hormones and chromosomes present in the individual because different genes (on the sex chromosomes, X and Y) respond differently to the different sex hormones (some are shared between the sexes, others aren't so much). There are two big phases for this interaction: fetal development through the first year of life, and puberty. Both of these periods involve a LOT of sex hormones. 

*XX Female child (with or w/out ambiguous genitalia), not-quite-female brain*
A fetus' development is partially dependent on the mother's hormones, which can cross the placenta into the baby, also. If the mother has a disorder or is taking certain drugs, too much or too little of a given hormone may be present in the fetus. This can lead to disorders which cause masculine traits and development in female embryos especially (it's associated with maternal and fetal disorders that cause surplus androgens). This is one reason for phenotypical intersex (ambiguous genitalia) in female infants. Said girls aren't boys, but are between the traditional, healthy "male" and "female" brain, however. This doesn't make them less female in my estimation (but I might get into that later). While surgery can correct the ambiguous genitalia, the brain's development has already been partially altered, to a degree determined by the amount, duration, and time period which she was exposed to said elevated androgen levels. The developing brain is more sensitive to such hormones at certain times. 


*XY Intersex child (may appear fully female or ambiguous), mostly-to-fully male brain*
Fetal development is complicated, so I'm going to try to make this one easier... While testosterone gets the big credit as the predominant male hormone, there is a more powerful androgen: dihydrotestosterone. This is made by the fetus early in development is a huge masculinizing force in the fetus. Even if a fetus makes normal levels of testosterone, it will not be as masculine as a child which makes both. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5aRD) leads to a reduced ability or inability to make and use dihydrotestosterone. Severe cases are mistaken as female at birth but can appear anywhere on the intersex spectrum (possibly as fully male if they have a really low grade deficiency). Even when raised as female, they still have male brains, like "boy" things, think "boy" thoughts. Puberty causes male development with the expected surge in testosterone, and the child abruptly gets a penis around 12. While the brain didn't get the boost from dihydrotestosterone during fetal development, the brain certainly received far more testosterone than a female would receive (even one that has various adrenal disorders that cause an excessive amount of androgens). It doesn't take as much to turn a female embryo into something more masculine because females have so very little testosterone; however, it takes a lot of androgens to turn a fetus into a boy (and the SRY gene/Y chromosome because the genes on said chromosome respond differently to the hormones). 5aRD is silent in functioning females (because they don't produce the affected hormone). It is rarely passed paternally because 5aRD men often have difficulty having children. 

*XY,  "female" child, female brain*
On the Y chromosome sit the SRY gene, which will very early (~7 weeks-ish) turn a fetus male by preventing the female ducts from developing into oviducts/fallopian tubes and encouraging differentiation of said ducts into the vasa deferentia and the ambiguous primary gonads into testes. If the SRY gene is present, the fetus will never be a functional adult female. The closest an XY fetus will get to being a true female is complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), which is caused when a hormone receptor for testosterone is nonfunctional. This leads to the failure of testosterone to change anything in the embryo (it can't get to the genes to cause those changes), so it builds up and is eventually metabolized into estrogen (which is a very close molecule--not much change is required). This causes the embryo to otherwise develop as a normal female--from outward appearances. Most CAIS patients don't realize anything is wrong until well into puberty when they don't seem to get as hairy, and don't menstruate. They develop breasts, and think and act like normal women, but they typically have shallower vaginas and can't reproduce. Like 5aRD, the mutations which cause CAIS are silent in XX women, so they can pass. There is a lesser syndrome that causes intersex children because the insensitivity isn't complete (it's a spectrum disorder). 

Substantial amounts of testosterone or estrogen during critical developmental periods will yield a child that is more masculine or feminine, or "male" or "female" brained. The development which has already taken place isn't going to be undone by hormone treatment later in life.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 16, 2019)

Intersex and gender identity disorders often get blamed on chromosomal abnormalities. I've seen nothing that I would call decent science proving any of that. I suspect the "Bobby" child mentioned above may have had a chromosomal disorder or 5aRD, based on the description. But he might have just been a little odd, and there's nothing wrong with that either. 

I've seen nothing proving that chromosomal abnormalities are linked with male/female "brainedness" or sexual preference. The disorders I mentioned earlier have also not led to marked gender dysphoria or non-heterosexual preferences (depending on how one chooses to assign CAIS, which are usually "straight women" even if they're chromosomally "gay men"). 

The keys to understanding why humans tolerate extra sex chromosomes better than autosomal chromosomes (all the numbered ones) is knowing that the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X chromosome and that the second X in any cell deactivates. Extra X chromosomes beyond the first will automatically Lyonize into bar bodies and become functionally inactive--only about 15% of the genes on this second X get transcribed ever, so this second one doesn't affect much. Autosomal chromosomes don't do this, so if one's present, it's going to dose that fetus with all kinds of extra gene transcription. Most trisomies (extra chromosome disorders) are incompatible with life and terminate in a miscarriage. 

Crash course on human sex chromosomes: XX= female; XY = male. 

45, X = Turner syndrome. Child is female, exhibits neck webbing often, short stature. Will have difficulty reproducing, if it's possible for the given patient (some can ovulate--at least for a little while, some can't). hormone replacement helps. Many cannot undergo puberty without supplemental hormones. Have a normal IQ typically. 

47, XXY = Klinefelter's syndrome. Child is male of above average stature. Many patients don't realize there's anything especially wrong with them until they have difficulty reproducing. Testes are typically smaller, body hair is generally less thick, voice may be higher than average. May develop gynecomastia (man boobs) or have intellectual impairment (varies widely). 

47, XYY = Quite often appear totally normal, have normal sexual development and hormones, can reproduce fine. Have a higher chance of a few weirdnesses: widely spaced eyes, funny pinky fingers, flat feet, scoliosis, big head, big teeth, lower muscle tone.  Nothing drastic. Psychosocial development may have some difficulties, however, and they have a higher chance of developing anxiety, autism, depression, ADHD. Have increased risk of intellectual impairment.

48, XXYY = It's like having both XXY and XYY, still very much capable of relatively normal living, though (they don't automatically die and don't have to be institutionalized with some huge frequency). Typical IQ 70-80 due to developmental delays and impairments. Just as infertile as XXY patients.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 16, 2019)

All of that to say that:

1) There are a ton of reasons why someone might think or act in a way which is contrary to an assigned gender role. Hormones, society, various drugs, diseases, just being conscious and enjoying free will and self-determination. Humans will disagree with each other on everything forever. Disliking a given "gender" doesn't mean there is anything intrinsically, physically wrong with someone.

2) No matter how hard one believes in a thing, reality will never conform to the belief (*but it might be _altered_ through actions)

3) Some things in development are non-reversible. Once a given door is opened or shut, it can never switch again after that point. 

4) Contrary to nouveau thinking and PC culture, there are not infinite sexes but are infinite variations in two sexes (because there are infinite possibilities for development to go haywire generally)

5) Gender as a social construct makes no sense. Gender _roles_ are societal constructs, but gender itself is personalized and overwhelmingly based biological phenomena. 

6) Nothing about humans or nature (let alone human nature) is neat. We're messy and complicated, and so is the universe. 

7) There are infinite possibilities for people generally, and it's stupid to pigeonhole everyone into some neat _exclusive _box when we should have _inclusive_ definitions. In other words, it's better to have infinite variations of two genders/sexes than try to come up with craptons of pronouns and get pissy with people who don't use the pronoun _du jour._ 

8) Children are children. They can't even be trusted to clean their rooms, put on clean underwear every day, or brush their damn teeth. Because they're not adults yet--they're _children._

9) Why would any sane parent expect a child to pick their sex--particularly when the reality will never match the desire? This is abuse, not love. 

10) It is more loving to confront someone with reality than enable them in a delusion. Why are delusions of sex/gender dealt with any differently than delusions of grandeur or paranoia? Perhaps if the disorder were treated the same as other delusions, it wouldn't have such an enormous suicide rate (pre- and post-op). Bottom line: if the treatment doesn't objectively improve life expectancy, it needs to be dumped in favor of a therapy that _does. 
_
11) Implying that a transgender person can ever be a functional member of the opposite sex is a preposterous, cruel lie. Even if one can _pass_, even if one actually avoided puberty via drugs (which aren't even necessarily safe--certainly not as safe as just undergoing puberty), even if one can totally look and feel the part, said person will never be able to reproduce as a member of that opposite sex. Sex is determined before gender, before birth, before conscious thought. The clock cannot go backwards. By the time someone decides they're unhappy in their given body with their given sex, it's too damn late to go back. Said person will always be basically living a lie. Reality always wins in the end. The process of surgically transitioning a functional person of one sex into a non-functional member of the other robs that person of ever being able to get over the delusion, accept their body and mind and move on with life--content in their own skin. 

12) Transgenderism is inherently sexist. Implying that a woman or man can't feel a certain way without being the opposite sex on the inside denies them agency. Feeling a certain way doesn't change anything anyway. A woman who feels she's a man inside denies that women can feel a certain way, which is an obvious lie because she's a woman and feels that way. If said person wasn't sexist, they could acknowledge that their feelings and thoughts were not impossible for their given sex--even if they might be an unusual member of their sex. Nothing wrong with being unusual. A woman can be a tomboy and/or lesbian all day long without denying the agency of other women to be more masculine or feminine than she is because she's neither sexist nor lying to herself. A man can be gay and/or a transvestite all day long without implying that men aren't _allowed_ to be effeminate. There is no objective border in terms of feelings, behaviors or thoughts which cause a person of one sex to mystically become the other sex on the inside. There are men which are more feminine than many women, and women who are more masculine than many men, and they have every right to be exactly as they are without someone telling them they aren't men or women, respectively. 

13) Sexist, part 2. The desire to change one's sex automatically implies that one sex is preferable over another, that one is somehow more _worthy_ of bearing one's consciousness. It's impossible to be transgender without (on some level, consciously or not) passing such a judgment. If women were really equal in worth to men, why would anyone change sex? It's just a body. It's neutral. Both sexes are necessary for the life of the species. They don't have to be the same to have equal worth. 

13) It's better to drive a functioning truck than it is to scrap the truck to make an outwardly beautiful but non-functioning sports car. One can always have the truck detailed, repainted, etc. Once turned into the lovely but worthless car, it can't be turned into a functional truck again. Those parts aren't around anymore to put back in. 

14) The deeper question is "Why is this person so upset with their body?" It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with sex. The person is arguing with reality, and instead of examining their own consciousness for why they're upset, they say the _body's_ wrong because it can't conform to their personal gender and concept of self. Under this delusion, the mind is never wrong--it's the _body's_ fault. Why is their given sex so abhorrent? Why do they feel so out of place and uncomfortable in their own skin? What might society do to help them become comfortable in their body?


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jul 18, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> 14) The deeper question is "Why is this person so upset with their body?" It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with sex. The person is arguing with reality, and instead of examining their own consciousness for why they're upset, they say the _body's_ wrong because it can't conform to their personal gender and concept of self. Under this delusion, the mind is never wrong--it's the _body's_ fault. Why is their given sex so abhorrent? Why do they feel so out of place and uncomfortable in their own skin? What might society do to help them become comfortable in their body?



It seems also that we have such an abnormal rate of teenage suicides today, too. What might society do to help preserve our young people from following through with such a horrific action? (I've heard there is a high correlation between LGBTQ teens and suicide, and this is especially troubling.)

While I think there's much more going on here than biology, but seigried007, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful response. I hope that whereever someone stands on this issue--particularly keeping in mind this post will be viewed by many nonmembers as well--that they will find some food for thought here.


----------



## candicame (Jul 18, 2019)

I don't understand why you're confused.

What's the issue?  Why would you say that to your kids?

Do you not know what gender is?  I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.  It sounds like you might not know what gender is.

Gender's not biological sex, it's a sociocultural construct.  We gender items that have nothing to do with a person's biological sex.  A piece of clothing, for example, has no gender.  There's nothing about being biologically female that qualifies one to wear a dress.  That's a cultural thing.

Different cultures have different gender roles, sometimes with prescribed actions, systems of conduct, and aesthetic guides for each gender under their system.  These have nothing to do with biological sex and are often at odds with biological sex.  For example, I am biologically female, meaning that like any other biological female, I will have certain secondary sex characteristics once I reach puberty.  Among these are the development of breasts, widening of the hips, development of a fatty-storage lipid structure called cellulite, and development of body hair.  Those are all normal secondary sex characteristics for female people.  However, for the gender role of "woman" many of these female characteristics are not included.  To fit within the narrowly defined gender role, I am expected to reduce the cellulite and remove the body hair, despite those being female traits.  

Because gender and biological sex are completely different entities, sex being biological and gender being sociocultural, there is a difference between being "female" and being a "woman".  One cannot be born with "girl" parts because there are no "girl" parts, there are female parts.  Female is a sex and girl is a gender.

Because gender roles change by time, place, and culture, gender is a fluid concept, and when you look at it too close it falls apart because it's not based on science.  People who want to preserve the gender roles of their culture often have difficulty accurately describing them.  They'll often conflate them with biological sexing, and find that they don't match up, which is what I believe you might be doing here.  People who do that have difficulty identifying and categorizing people into one of the biological sexes using gendered identities, because of how murky it gets when you look at it.  For example, for your "girl parts" analogy- if a female is born without a uterus, or without some other structure in the female reproductive system, does that make her not a girl?  How much does she have to be missing before she's no longer a girl?  My mother suffered from endometriosis and had to have a complete hysterectomy, so is she no longer a woman even though she fits the gender role reasonably well (she's a mother to three children, has the other primary sex characteristics and some secondary sex characteristics, including those NOT in the gender role like the body hair, and also is a stay-at-home mother and fits many of the other cultural gender roles)?  Where do you draw the line?

The answer is that there is no line because you're confusing gender with sex.  She's a cisgendered woman, she's both female and a woman, and not having a uterus doesn't make her less of a woman, any more than my grandma's complete masectomy and hysterectomy make her any less of a woman.  Because those biological traits do not make someone a certain gender.  "Girl parts" do not make someone a girl, and when you say that, you're doing a disservice not just to transgender and genderfluid people, but people like those in my family.  They are affected by that language.  Women have been told that they aren't "real women" because of this mindset, even if they're cisgendered.  I want you to understand that when you perpetuate that mindset, you aren't just hurting the trans community.  People like my granny who go through cancer hear this.  They hear that "girl parts" are what makes a woman, and they have their own body- which was strong enough to withstand cancer- invalidated.  This language is not ok for people to use.  There is harm in it.  And again, that harm does not stop at the transgender community, which would be bad enough.  It also devalues people that you would consider "real" women.

I'm not here to police your thoughts or your language.  I'm just saying that if you would change your mindset and take more care with the language you use, it would have great value on our society as a whole, and on me in particular.  I have endometriosis.  My gynecologist says that like my mother and grandmother before me, I'll probably have to have a complete hysterectomy in the next decade.  And in complete defiance of your mindset, I will remain a real woman, a whole woman, a "woman" with no qualifiers.  Because being a woman has nothing to do with my "girl parts".

I hope you come to understand this, because your children were right to chide you for that language, for a number of reasons.  This is also not a new thing.  There have been transgender and genderfluid people since the beginning of recorded human history.  The word "androgenous" comes from the ancient Greek word for genderfluid people.  That's why it exists.  They have always been here, they are part of the human experience, and their lives and experiences have worth.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 18, 2019)

candicame said:


> I don't understand why you're confused.
> 
> ...snipped



I believe all of this, but it leaves me a bit confused, still. And I should stress that this is MY confusion. Me not understanding something doesn't invalidate the reality of the situation for people who are transgender... I don't really understand gravity, either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Anyway - if we understand gender as a social construct (which I do) then it seems strange to me to have surgery or other medical interventions in order to address the challenges of being transgender. There are plenty of ways to be gender non-conforming that don't involve changing physical sex. I read about transgender people feeling that their genitals (or other physical elements) are just wrong. To me, this seems to be an issue with their sex, not their gender?

If we accept that a woman without a uterus is a woman (which of course I do) we're essentially saying that the physical characteristics do not determine the gender. But a lot of transgender people seek to change their physical characteristics, and this is where I get confused.

I, in many ways, live as more "male" than many women. That is, I don't conform to a lot of stereotypically "feminine" behaviours. (I'm not domestic, not very nurturing, can be physically and intellectually aggressive, and otherwise don't follow a lot of the unspoken rules of being a woman in my society). But I don't feel that I'm living in the wrong body; I'm cisgender, despite being fairly gender non-conforming.

So I feel like there's an extra step in being transgender that I'm not really understanding.

We have a transgender girl at the local school who was VERY stereotypically girly before she transitioned (just a social transition, no medical interventions yet). Living as a boy, she would wear outrageously flamboyant accessories (sparkles and boas and floral prints and whatever else she could find). Then she transitioned to being a girl (change of name, re-naming ceremony, being reintroduced to her classmates, etc.) and now, as a girl, she tends to wear unaccessorized, gender-neutral Tshirts and jeans, like most of the rest of the girls. Before her gender was formally recognized, she seemed to feel the need to PERFORM her gender, following the stereotypes she was aware of, but once it was recognized, she seemed to relax. This all makes sense to me. It all seems to be based on gender. But it doesn't get into the physical transformation element.

Of course there are some transgender people who don't feel the need to take hormones or have surgeries. But there are many who do. For them... does the old "transsexual" term actually make more sense? Sex is about the body, gender is about the social constructs. So  changing the body to address gender feels weird to me.

Insight?


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

Megan Pearson said:


> It seems also that we have such an abnormal rate of teenage suicides today, too. What might society do to help preserve our young people from following through with such a horrific action? (I've heard there is a high correlation between LGBTQ teens and suicide, and this is especially troubling.)
> 
> While I think there's much more going on here than biology, but seigried007, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful response. I hope that whereever someone stands on this issue--particularly keeping in mind this post will be viewed by many nonmembers as well--that they will find some food for thought here.



The life expectancy of America (and probably other highly tech savvy nations) has gone down due to suicides. Big culprit: social media. People post all of these nice pictures and stories about how nice their lives are but are more hesitant to post "dirty laundry" and vulnerability lest they be ostracized. For lonelier teenagers, this is especially dangerous. 

The fastest way to turn joy to ashes is to compare yourself to other people. And that's pretty much what social media does. 

The suicides in the LGBTQ community are appalling, but the transgender rate of suicide ranks around the "forced laborers in Nazi concentration camps" level, and I think, as a society, we need to figure out why they do it. The answer in most PC circles is that the transgender community is especially persecuted, but they're not outwardly persecuted with anything like the levels of Jews during the Holocaust, and yet they rank alongside that palpable sort of hopelessness. Why? 

The best answer I have is that they are inwardly persecuted. Reality is crushing them. They think they'll be happy if they can just change this one thing--they'll fit in, things will go smoothly, they'll finally feel at peace, and all will be right with the world. But that isn't so. Even once all the surgeries are completed and no one outside can tell that they aren't what they feel like, they'll never actually be a genuine member of the opposite sex. This change in outward appearance can't change the unhappiness they feel deep in their souls--they bring that depression, and anxiety with them into this new body. The truth is that peace really is found from within--it's a state of mind--and nothing in our outward circumstances will ever bring it. Circumstance might make the fleeting cheer easily obtained, but you only know the peace is real during the emergencies, failures, terrors. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. 

The culture presses on us from birth that we'll be happy if we just do or have something else--and it's always a lie. Having some new material thing or doing some new activity will never bring real joy, and I think the dissonance between what a transgender person "should feel" and "actually feels" after surgery is why the suicide rate remains enormous. What they've built up as the cure for their malady simply isn't going to make them happy--just like having that new house, that new car, that beautiful spouse will never actually make anyone permanently happy. At best, these state changes provide a temporary happiness, and when that wears off, it's going to give way to crushing despair because the "cure" is just window dressing.


----------



## candicame (Jul 18, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I believe all of this, but it leaves me a bit confused, still. And I should stress that this is MY confusion. Me not understanding something doesn't invalidate the reality of the situation for people who are transgender... I don't really understand gravity, either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> Anyway - if we understand gender as a social construct (which I do) then it seems strange to me to have surgery or other medical interventions in order to address the challenges of being transgender. There are plenty of ways to be gender non-conforming that don't involve changing physical sex. I read about transgender people feeling that their genitals (or other physical elements) are just wrong. To me, this seems to be an issue with their sex, not their gender?
> 
> ...



The term for people who need to have surgery is "body dysmorphia" and it relates to what I mentioned above.  I want you to imagine how horrible it feels to be told you aren't a woman because you lost your breasts to cancer.  Imagine how horrible it feels to be told you aren't a woman because you had to have a hysterectomy.

Now imagine how horrible it would feel to be told you weren't a woman because you had a birth defect.  Imagine you were born with a vaginal birth defect that was so severe other people thought it was a penis.  Imagine being told, for your entire life, that you would never be a woman, because of this birth defect.

Thransgender and transexual are two different terms, it's not that one is the "old" one and one is the "new" one.  Transgender refers to gender, transexual refer to biological sex.  If you are transexual, that's what you're dealing with.  You're dealing with a birth defect so severe other people are constantly mistaking you for a completely different sex.  The stress caused by 1: Living with the birth defect day to day and 2: Other people's reaction to it in a gendered society, is called "Body dysmorphia".

So people undergo surgery, just like anyone else with a physical deformity that affects their life.  Some people may choose not to, just as others with deformities have, because being different from the norm does not make a person broken.  But others want to be normal.  So they undergo hormone therapy and surgery to achieve normalcy.

I have a physical birth defect. It's called a chari malformation.  My skull is too small to house my brain so my brain is leaking down my neck.  I chose not to have surgery, despite it having an effect on my life.  There are a number of reasons one may choose not have surgery; in my case it was the expense, the down time, the fact that it isn't super noticible and no one ever comments on it so it doesn't affect me socially (the malformation is in the back and covered by hair), and the neurosurgeon said it was not an absolute medical necessity right this second.  But I know I'm not normal.  I know it would be great to have a normal skull and not get headaches.  But surgery isn't free or instant.  So even though it's affecting my life, I can't just run out and have surgery.  And those are valid reasons not to have ANY surgery.  And sexual reassignment surgery is even worse because it's actually a series of surgeries.  Mine would be a one and done thing.  These are perfectly valid reasons for trans people not to get surgery even if they experience body dysmorphia.  Any my insurance would pay to get my skull expanded; it usually doesn't cover the series of surgeries they would need.  We're talking tens of thousands of dollars.

And with hormone therapy, again, I feel a kinship here, because I actually also have a hormone disorder that requires constant treatment.  The reason that I have endometreosis is because my estrogen levels are naturally about 4 times what they should be.  That means that my uterus produces endometric tissue not just during the week it should, but all the time.  This means that the endometric tissue can get so thick my uterus swells until it's the size of someone who is three month's pregnant.  That means it can rupture, and the endometric tissue will leak out, and then I've got nasty rotting meat leaking onto my other organs.  You're probably starting to see why my gynocologist is telling me I'm going to eventually have to cut the whole thing out.  To prevent that, I have to be on hormone therapy- right now I'm doing the shots.  Every three months I have to go in and get shots to regulate my sex hormones.  Because of a birth defect.

It also makes me super fertile, because there's all that endometric tissue for the egg to implant in, so... my birth control game is strong.  You wanna know how strong my birth control game is, ask my kids- oh right, you can't because I ain't got not kids.  That's how strong my birth control game is.  But I understand what it's like to be in a body that doesn't produce the right hormones in the right amounts.  If this had affected testosterone instead of estrogen, I'd have people misgendering me, and a completely different, more masculine body.  I just happened to have one that lined up to my gender and biological sex.  And there are cisgendered women who have hormonal disorders, again, from birth, that are linked to testosterone.  They go on the same hormone therapy that transgender women do.  Because it's the same disorder.  And they tend to have issues with infertility.  And again, because these overlap so much, it's difficult to determine with sex what makes someone male or female, when you look closely.  It's so difficult that contemporary science doesn't have an answer.  Something like 1 in 1000 people can't be classified as male or female; doctors have charts that tell them how to restructure genitles shortly after birth in surgery, and they just have to pick which one to go with.  Sometimes they pick wrong and the person's hormones during puberty don't match what the doctors picked.  I read one story of a person who started menstruating, but because the doctors had picked wrong and assigned her male at birth (and performed surgery to give her male genetalia) the menstrual blood had nowhere to go.  She had to have emergency surgery because she was in the same boat I'm in when my uterus ruptures.

My point is, there are a bunch of reasons to, and also not to, get surgeries or go on hormone therapy.  And just because someone has body dysmorphia does not mean they have the money, time, energy, or fortitude for those things.  And I don't think it's very hard to understand that, because we're all human and we know how life is.

I feel like I'm making myself come off as sickly and I'm not.  I've been dealt a few shit genetic cards but I'm fine.  As are most transgender folks.  And because body dysphoria can be tied to gender identity and expression, it's not even guaranteed that the surgery will cure it.  So you could spend all that time and money and still experience dysmorphia with the results.  That kind of thing is a major decision, and should be made individually.  There is no one answer.

Also, not for nothing, but some of the stuff you're saying is masculine I was taught was feminine, so I think we might be from two different cultures and that really speaks to the fluidity of gender roles.  I mean, I was always taught that women were more aggressive than men and was warned about it several times throughout my life.  Specifically when I was getting my psyche degree I had to take this class on working with bullying and agressive behavior and this was a major issue because women are taught to be more agressive (socially, like taught by society and culture), and that means the bullying with girls is way worse.  Boys can get in a fight and then be friends at the end.  Girls will go until one of them is in the hospital or dead.  A woman scorned is a life long enemy and is more prone to actually attack, forever.  That's a common attitude, but it is cultural, even in the psyche classes they tell you that it's cultural.  There are other societies where agression is seen as a male trait, but in the US and much of western society it's seen as a female trait.  That's why it's "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and whatnot.  And why we have two different kind of breakup songs describing heterosexual relationships that have just been made a million times.  The male version is something like, "There's a tear in my beer, and I'm cryin for you dear" and the female version is like, "So I dug my keys into the side of his pretty little souped up four wheel drive, carved my name into his leather seats".  That's why agressive people are named after a female dog.  

Women in my culture are also largely regarded to be more intelligent than men, which is actually really detrimental to everyone and I would love to see that stop.  I actually wrote my thesis on this part of our culture with the school system.  What you generally see is girls are pushed to be more academic, and boys are pushed to be more sporty.  In my culture parents, teachers, coaches, and other authority figures will literally get boys to purposefully fail academically so that they can stay at that school and play sportsball for their team for another year.  The girls go on to achieve more post-secondary degrees than their male peers, who were held back because many subjects are considered "girly" and they need to play sports.  This has an obvious outcome on female athletes, but perhaps a less obvious outcome on male scholars that's this whole other thing- like I said I've written academic papers on it and I can't adequately cover it here, but it's a whole societal thing.  That's why our arts, like our TV shows and movies that revolve around a heterosexual romantic partnership tend to be an intelligent female inexplicibly married to and in a long term relationship with a male so idiotic and incompetent he can barely keep his act together long enough to get through the day.  This cultural norm of course leads to people emulating that and winding up completely unsatisfied in their relationships.  It infantalizes the man and places so much stress on the woman it's like holding down a second full time job.  There's a lot that goes into this with lifetime happiness, but again, you can take entire classes on this and why "Girls go to college to get more knowlege and boys go to Jupider to get more stupider" as a mindset permiating our society is bad for everyone, but my point is that it IS the prevailing mindset for my society here in the contemporary US, but not for every society because gender norms change with time and location.

I just find it interesting that we're discussing gender norms, and I count being physically and intellectually agressive as something that makes me MORE feminine.  I've even had people say that it was linked to my hormone disorder, because estrogen levels do tend to correlate with agression (but, spoiler alert, so do testosterone levels, just in a more roundabout way.  Testosterone is the "mood" hormone, so having more of it makes you have mood swings.  Women tend to have more testosterone during their period, which is why mood swings are a thing, and men who abuse steroids tend to have those same exact mood swings, which is why "Roid Rage" is a thing.  They're acting like they're on their period because they're having the same hormone influx as people on their period.  So this is actually not a gendered thing at all.  It's just how society perceives it.)

I'm rambling, but I'm gonna post it anyway, because this seems like it's almost interesting.  And it really shows how there's not a whole lot of differences between the sexes or the genders.  It's all kind of wonky when you look at it real close.  Remember, the only differnece in the DNA is half a chromozone is missing in the guys so the body checks to see if it's got a full or partial code and changes a few things based on that.  It's not enough to make any significant change in things like intelligence or strength.  People are far more close when tested in any area to their full blood different-sexed sibling than they are their same-sex strangers.  And because that line is so fuzzy, you shouldn't be faulted for stepping over it or redrawing it if it's causing you problems.

I also want to reiterate that I am cisgendered, so I'm far less qualified to speak on this than someone who does actually experience body dysmorphia.  This is really something they should take precidence on.  If anyone who actually has experienced it is willing to talk about it, they should be listened to.  They know more about it than I do.  They could tell you why they did or didn't decide to seek treatment.  But also, this is a very personal decision, and isn't something I would consider it to be in good taste to just ask someone about unprompted.  Something trans folks as a group have to face that has got to be aggravating, invasive, and plain inappropriate is people constantly asking about their genitals.  That's just a f*cked up thing to ask somebody and I don't know why people do it so often.  And they seem like they do actually do it pretty often.


----------



## candicame (Jul 18, 2019)

@seigfried007

We know why levels of suicide are so high in transgender teens and it is actually the persecution from outside forces thing.  That's not a "PC narrative", that's what the case studies, psyche studies, and sociology studies say.  I would strongly advise that you get a subscription to the site PsycheInfo, it's a database of all the peer review research that is used in the field of psychology in the united states and has a WEALTH of information on this topic!  When you study psychology at college you have to sign up for it because it's the database you'll use to write all your research papers and whatnot and it is a great resource to help you understand this topic. 

It's actually not just suicide either.  Transgender folks, and transgender women espeically are at-risk and overrepresented as victims of violent crime.  I say "victims" rather than "survivors" because many of them don't survive.  They're overrepresentated in homocides as well as other forms of violent crime.  When people are literally trying to kill your for existing, you do tend to get discouraged and depressed. 

It's also generally not acceptable to compare victims to each other, because that's an abuse tactic.  Saying, "You don't have it as bad as the Jewish people during the Holocaust" is similar to an emotionally abusive spouse saying, "You don't have it as bad as someone who's spouse is physically abusive".  So it's generally best to avoid doing things like that.  It's in poor taste and is considered unacceptable in most circles.  You can't make those kind of comparisons academically, like if you're writing a psyche paper, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost from doing that.  Because the mindset is inherantly abusive it makes it difficult to view the subject objectively, and it's got a lot of ethical problems that an ethics board just won't allow.  I get that we're not doing that and this is just an internet forum, but I thought I'd let you know because it seemed like you might just genuienly not know the ethical issues implicit in that mindset.

Also, grammerly's not working for some reason, so if my posts are super type-ridden today I'm sorry.  I don't know what's wrong with it, and I know I can't spell to save my life so I might be having a real hard time.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

candicame said:


> @seigfried007
> 
> We know why levels of suicide are so high in transgender teens and it is actually the persecution from outside forces thing.  That's not a "PC narrative", that's what the case studies, psyche studies, and sociology studies say.  I would strongly advise that you get a subscription to the site PsycheInfo, it's a database of all the peer review research that is used in the field of psychology in the united states and has a WEALTH of information on this topic!  When you study psychology at college you have to sign up for it because it's the database you'll use to write all your research papers and whatnot and it is a great resource to help you understand this topic.
> 
> ...



You're spelling is fine enough to be understood. No worries. 

I'm not trying to make comparisons academically. I'm on a writing forum full of writers. 

I'm a former transgendered person, too, but like about 90% of persons with the disorder from childhood, I got a reality check and moved on with my life. Chopping parts off wasn't going to make me whole because what needed fixing wasn't my outward _appearance_ but my _outlook_.

Psychology is a soft, social science. I'm a hard science person. I'm not going to care about what modern psychology necessarily says because it changes with the weather. Gender as separate from sex really hasn't been around that long. I'm old enough to remember different times and different definitions in the DSM. I also know that said definitions have changed a lot since persons with aberrant psychology flooded into the "science". Persons with aberrant psychology are intrinsically drawn to the field, which is why the crazy psychologist is a trope. This is why Same Sex Affection/Attraction Disorder is no longer a thing--gay people flooded into the profession. Transsexuals/transgenders also flood into it. So do pedophiles. If you want people to stop calling you weird, psychology is where you go to change everyone's minds. All you need to do is wait, and publish, and wait, and publish, and teach some classes, enlist people just like you to join your profession, write a bunch of touchy-feely BS, and wait for society to change some more. Voila, you're not weird any more. But you've still got issues--even if other people don't look at you for being weird any more. 

Yes, transsexuals might be abused more than some other people. It doesn't mean there are strange gangs of people, roaming around in search of transgendered people to destroy. That's a myth. Lots of supposed hate crimes weren't motivated by intolerance. Quite often, the abusing party didn't even realize said person was transgendered.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 18, 2019)

candicame said:


> Thransgender and transexual are two different terms, it's not that one is the "old" one and one is the "new" one."



from the GLAAD MEdia Reference Guide: "*Transsexual (adj.)*An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. Still preferred by some people...It is best to ask which term a person prefers." - https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgenderThat reference does go on to mention that transsexual is generally used by people who seek medical interventions, as you mention, but that site doesn't mention any direct link between the term "transsexual" and the term "body dysmorphia". It actually doesn't mention the term "body dysmorphia" at all.

And when I search further, I find that there's really no connection between body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria, which may have been the term you intended to use? See https://roygbiv.jezebel.com/stop-confusing-gender-dysphoria-with-body-dysmorphia-al-1583049920 for discussion, including definitions from relevant health authorities.

Anyway, the point is... I'm not sure you're quite as much of an authority on this as you're presenting yourself to be? And I think, based on your efforts to get me to be more empathetic toward transgender (or transsexual) people, that I'm not communicating well with you. That is... I don't need more empathy. I don't need more anecdotes. I am chock-full of empathy and compassion and I fully support the efforts of transgender or transsexual people to get themselves happy and healthy. I don't need more _emotional_ connection. I'm trying to gain a deeper _intellectual_ understanding of the situation. Thanks for your efforts to help me with that... I'll continue with my reading.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

candicame said:


> @seigfried007
> 
> We know why levels of suicide are so high in transgender teens and it is actually the persecution from outside forces thing.  That's not a "PC narrative", that's what the case studies, psyche studies, and sociology studies say.



Why someone commits suicide is not something objective, and therefore, never something one can know. It's not like "cesium + water = explosion". It's not like the atomic weight of carbon. It's not like defining some objective truth to the universe. No one can tell you after they kill themselves why exactly they did it. 

Suicide is a many-splendored horror. There are lots of reasons to do it, and it's exceptionally rare for only one reason to play a role. Much like most of the rest of mental health, suicide is the culmination of a lifetime of experience. One thing might've tipped the scales and seemed to force the issue (the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"), but it's not one event that really caused it. 

As someone who's made multiple suicide attempts living as a transgendered person, I can tell you I was never tempted to kill myself over persecution. Depression, alienation, isolation, a lifetime of sexual and emotional abuse, drug interaction problems, poverty, hypothyroidism, intense social anxiety, extreme difficulty forming close relationships with other people, a lack of  friends and healthy relationships... everything piled on over a lifetime, so that--at some points--life was just unbearable, pointless, hopeless. 

But I can guarantee that when you ask someone why they tried to kill themselves, they won't give you the whole picture. They can't. It takes years of distance to break this stuff down. When asked--in an overly emotional state with no distance--the person cannot give you the full picture. They'll usually tell you some inciting incident--if they even have one. Sometimes, there doesn't seem to be an inciting incident at all.  

What's someone going to say? Especially as a transgendered person in that instance? The easiest, simplest way out is to claim persecution--if nothing else because that's what everyone else is doing. And absolutely _anything _can be termed persecution after the fact. There doesn't have to be any abuse or intention at all. Inciting incidents don't have to be "big deals". Sometimes, they're reminders of former trauma--and _anything_ can serve that purpose. 

I still maintain that the best way to fight a delusion is with objectivity. I've helped a lot of other delusional people out by confronting them with reality. It works so long as it's delivered with sensitivity and respect after a relationship built on trust has already been formed. I did more to help out a 75-lb anorexic teenager--while we were both in-patient at a hospital--than all the degree-bearing psych personnel--because I got to her to admit that I wasn't fat, then objectively proved to her that she was half my size. She couldn't go back on me not being fat, but she also couldn't deny that she was objectively half as wide as me either. It worked. I got her to eat.


----------



## candicame (Jul 18, 2019)

Bayview said:


> from the GLAAD MEdia Reference Guide: "*Transsexual (adj.)*An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. Still preferred by some people...It is best to ask which term a person prefers." - https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgenderThat reference does go on to mention that transsexual is generally used by people who seek medical interventions, as you mention, but that site doesn't mention any direct link between the term "transsexual" and the term "body dysmorphia". It actually doesn't mention the term "body dysmorphia" at all.
> 
> And when I search further, I find that there's really no connection between body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria, which may have been the term you intended to use? See https://roygbiv.jezebel.com/stop-confusing-gender-dysphoria-with-body-dysmorphia-al-1583049920 for discussion, including definitions from relevant health authorities.
> 
> Anyway, the point is... I'm not sure you're quite as much of an authority on this as you're presenting yourself to be? And I think, based on your efforts to get me to be more empathetic toward transgender (or transsexual) people, that I'm not communicating well with you. That is... I don't need more empathy. I don't need more anecdotes. I am chock-full of empathy and compassion and I fully support the efforts of transgender or transsexual people to get themselves happy and healthy. I don't need more _emotional_ connection. I'm trying to gain a deeper _intellectual_ understanding of the situation. Thanks for your efforts to help me with that... I'll continue with my reading.



First of all, I'm not an authority and I never presented myself as an authority.  I can only study these things.  I'm cisgendered.  I will never be an authority like someone who has lived it, and I explicitly stated that.  So I will admit that I resent being told I tried to present myself as an authority when I explictly said that thought I can relate, I will never understand like someone who actually experiences body dysmprphia. 

No, I meant body dysmorphia, which is a psychological term.  It's not the same thing as gender dysmorphia.  Body dysmorphia is commonly associated with defects, which is why I used it in my example, as it covers both my skull deformity and the analogy I was using for gentals as a "birth defect".  Both myself and a trans person may experience body dysmorphia, but as a cis person I won't experience gender dysphoria, beause I'm cisgendered.  I don't even get body dysmorphia, because like I said, my deformity isn't something that I think about all the time or that I elected to have surgery for, or that I even consider that big of a deal.  I'm fine with my body how it is.  But I am at-risk for it.  Body dysmorphia is an understanding that there is something wrong with your body and a desire to change it.  It can affect your life.  We often see it with people who have deformities, who are transgender, or who are in some way differnt from what we think of as a "typical" human body.

I would also caution you from using Jezebel as a source for your research.  Though they do often fact-check fairly well, what you've linked is an opinon piece that misdefines what body dysmorphia actually is.  It doesn't necissarily have to be a dellusion, and in fact it's often not.  It's usually just a strong feeling about an actual flaw that becomes overpowering.  So while it can be called an overreaction, it's not, as this person is characterizing it, a delusion, and that seems to be where their problem lies, and why they were insulted.  I can actually speculate about why they thought this- body dysmorphia is a well known aspect of certain eating disorders, where it does often appear as a dellusion.  But dysmorphia means "malformation" so I could just as easily say I have a chari dysmorphia and in my analogy that person could have said they had a vaginal malformation.

Many transgender people do experience body dysmorphia, especially in relation to their genetials.  There's actually a huge thing in the transgender community about whether or not a person is really trans or just genderfluid if they only experience gender dysphoria rather than gender dysphoria alongside body dysmorphia.  And because that's none of my buisness I tend to stay out of it.  That's for them to figure out.  But if you're researching you're going to find conflicting information because it's this whole...  other thing.

Here's an actual transgender person explaining how these two concepts intertwine, how she experiences them in her own life.  She can tell you better than I can: https://www.allure.com/story/transgender-body-dysmorphia-gender-dysphoria-effects


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

Ah, but if there's nothing wrong with the body, the person can't have body dysmorphia then, yes? At that point, the _body's _fine, and it's the _mind_ that's wrong--no matter how strongly said person _feels_ the body is wrong.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 18, 2019)

candicame said:


> No, I meant body dysmorphia, which is a psychological term.  It's not the same thing as gender dysmorphia.



I know it's not the same thing. That's my point. Transgender people are often said to have gender dysphoria. You used the term body dysmorphia, which has no clear connection to being transgendered. Even the article you linked makes it clear these are two very separate conditions.




> I would also caution you from using Jezebel as a source for your research.


 Yes, I'm aware of their limitations. That's why I stressed that the article included definitions from health authorities.



> Here's an actual transgender person explaining how these two concepts intertwine, how she experiences them in her own life.  She can tell you better than I can: https://www.allure.com/story/transgender-body-dysmorphia-gender-dysphoria-effects



I agree that people living with conditions are the best people to tell us about their experiences. But they aren't necessarily the best people to tell us about scholarship in the field, official terminology, etc. So I'd caution you from using personal anecdotes as a source for your research, if you're researching the scholarship as opposed to the personal. For example, on this thread we have comments from a "former trangender" person who is saying things I don't think are in keeping with the scholarship or with the experiences of other transgender people. Are you prepared to accept the definitions and conclusions of this poster over the scholarship of others? In general, I think it's best to find sources that combine the academic research and the lived experiences, which is why I provided a reference to GLAAD in my previous response. And, again, GLAAD doesn't mention body dysmorphia at all.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I agree that people living with conditions are the best people to tell us about their experiences. But they aren't necessarily the best people to tell us about scholarship in the field, official terminology, etc. So I'd caution you from using personal anecdotes as a source for your research, if you're researching the scholarship as opposed to the personal. For example, on this thread we have comments from a "former trangender" person who is saying things I don't think are in keeping with the scholarship or with the experiences of other transgender people. Are you prepared to accept the definitions and conclusions of this poster over the scholarship of others? In general, I think it's best to find sources that combine the academic research and the lived experiences, which is why I provided a reference to GLAAD in my previous response. And, again, GLAAD doesn't mention body dysmorphia at all.



But this does highlight a few things:

1) Scholars and doctors don't know what living with the condition is like
2) Definitions change, and no one agrees on definitions anyway
3) A person living with the condition can talk about their personal experience (inform a case study, shed some light on the experience)
4) No two people are going to experience exactly the same things and have the same perceptions
5) Societal changes play a big part in how given phenomena are perceived (especially regarding issues of mental health)

I think it's possible that--just like my earlier example of suicide--identity in general is formed by a combination of experiences which are more often than not too numerous to enumerate consciously. Hence, when someone identifies as something other than what they objectively are, there won't  be a defining moment like flipping a light switch. "One second, said person is happy in their body, the next they're not" is not how it works when forming something as complicated as one's identity. I think orientation works the same way though. It's complicated. While 99% of people might come to the same conclusion (be, say, cis-gendered straight people), there will always be someone with a different (perhaps unusual) set of circumstances and experiences who comes to a very different conclusion. 

And, much like with suicide, there are too many (big or minuscule) events, experiences, thoughts, feelings, relationships which have all built up to this point where the outcome appears completely natural and inevitable. I believe this is where a lot of the "born that way" argument comes from--because it feels so natural and inevitable, like there was never any chance to be different by the time one gets to that point. It feels fated, and there's no going back to do it over again and see if something goes differently. There's not some conscious decision made along the way so much as there's a conscious realization at some point (particularly in cases where the person realizes they're abnormal, of course, because "normal" people don't generally have identity crises where they suddenly realize how woefully normal they are... though that is kind of a neat story idea). 

Ostracism, however, is one of the most horrible things humans can inflict on each other--its not the being weird that gets ya, it's the social fallout. Humans are born conformers.

Bayview, I saw what you did with those quotes around "former transgender" there, and I wanted to let you know how hurtful it was and how offended I am about it. (I'm actually smiling about it though)


----------



## Bayview (Jul 18, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> But this does highlight a few things:
> 
> 1) Scholars and doctors don't know what living with the condition is like
> 2) Definitions change, and no one agrees on definitions anyway
> ...



I agree that everything is way more complex than simple definitions would suggest. And I agree that scholars and doctors shouldn't be our _only_ source of education on these topics, because, you're right, most of them don't have first-hand experience. But precisely because everything _is_ so varied and complicated, I think they're the best source for definitions of terms, because the terms can only ever approximate reality anyway, if that makes sense? Like, once we acknowledge that the terms themselves are a construct, then it's the people who deal with the constructs, rather than the reality, who are best equipped to define the terms.

And, yes, the quotation marks were deliberate, but not meant to be hurtful... I hope your smile is sincere!


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 18, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I agree that everything is way more complex than simple definitions would suggest. And I agree that scholars and doctors shouldn't be our _only_ source of education on these topics, because, you're right, most of them don't have first-hand experience. But precisely because everything _is_ so varied and complicated, I think they're the best source for definitions of terms, because the terms can only ever approximate reality anyway, if that makes sense? Like, once we acknowledge that the terms themselves are a construct, then it's the people who deal with the constructs, rather than the reality, who are best equipped to define the terms.
> 
> And, yes, the quotation marks were deliberate, but not meant to be hurtful... I hope your smile is sincere!



I've met too many academics and read too many books to think they always agree on anything. The softer the science, the harder it is to get a good, hard definition that everyone agrees on. 

For instance, I spent five years in the biology department, then went for an epidemiology minor. I thought epi was going to be more like microbiology. Whoa, no. Epi is lumped in with public health, which is dominated by people who talk in demographics and social science buzzwords. Nobody can agree on definitions there--even things I thought would have hard definitions. Every dang book and lecturer had different definitions for the same thing. I figured something like "public health" would have a hard definition in the public health department... but as it turns out, everyone's continuing to argue about it. I thought "vector" would be a hard definition, but alas, different books have different definitions. 

And public health is still a harder science than sociology and psychology. 

While fascinating subjects and certainly worth studying, they're highly subject to the times because they're aren't objective truths to uncover. It amounts to navel-gazing because no one can ever really win the argument. Reality has objective truths, but the mental state of people doesn't. We all experience everything differently, from our own little vantage points, filtered through the coloring, distorting lens of our personal experiences. The mind cannot be objectively quantified, so we're all left wondering, pondering, mulling over things forever, trying to objectively study and understand something that is entirely subjective.  

Because there's nothing physically to understand about a purely mental illness itself, there's nothing hard to fall back on (though hopefully we'll be able to find physical reasons for more "mental" illnesses and be able to find better treatments for them), so the definitions change, the societal attitudes change. This isn't to say it shouldn't be studied, but facts and objective truth aren't easily found in social sciences as often as they are in hard sciences. Everyone's got to start somewhere though. 

Bulking up studies with statistics is a great way to beef up objectivity, and I'm very glad that more psychological studies are focusing on bigger samples now. With especially rare disorders like transgenderism/gender dysphoria, however, it can be difficult to boost statistical relevance because the sample size is too small to draw general conclusions from. This is sometimes overcome by meta-analysis and using data from other studies... but then one runs into data gathered by different researchers who were using different definitions again. 

Another big deal in academic circles is "publish or perish". It brings fame and notoriety (and lots of needed money) to publish something that'll rock some socks. Even if it's a pitiful sample, some shoddy science, some weird conclusions, some conflict of interest. This happens in hard science, too (I can talk a long time about the vaccines & autism article that kickstarted that movement)--even when definitions aren't always changing. 

Autism is another condition with an ever fluctuating definition. It--like gender dysphoria--hasn't been a term that long, which is part of why the definition and "facts" keep seeming to change as more research comes in. The new DSM is supposed to be restricting the definition a bit after the previous/current one expanded it to include a very substantial minority. Will thousands of people no longer have autism because the definition has suddenly changed? Changing the definition doesn't change the person. Hanging a diagnosis on someone doesn't make them healthy, doesn't change anything. Taking a diagnosis away doesn't change anything about that person's condition either (even if they might not be eligible for some programs).

Taxonomy is another thing like this. Changing the scientific name of a critter doesn't make them change at all. People argue about the naming of species--who's related to who, how closely, etc.--til they're blue in the face... but in the end, the critter doesn't know or care. Disease and mental illness don't care if they're diagnosed because the act of diagnosing them doesn't treat them. 

I agree they're the best people to define something, I just wish they'd stick to a definition and--better yet--get cracking on treatments that work. Studying the suffering of others is a cruel passtime if nothing's done to help those people.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 19, 2019)

candicame said:


> @seigfried007
> 
> It's also generally not acceptable to compare victims to each other, because that's an abuse tactic.  Saying, "You don't have it as bad as the Jewish people during the Holocaust" is similar to an emotionally abusive spouse saying, "You don't have it as bad as someone who's spouse is physically abusive".  So it's generally best to avoid doing things like that.  It's in poor taste and is considered unacceptable in most circles.  You can't make those kind of comparisons academically, like if you're writing a psyche paper, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost from doing that.  Because the mindset is inherantly abusive it makes it difficult to view the subject objectively, and it's got a lot of ethical problems that an ethics board just won't allow.  I get that we're not doing that and this is just an internet forum, but I thought I'd let you know because it seemed like you might just genuienly not know the ethical issues implicit in that mindset.




Let's start with the premise that real things can be scientifically, rationally, mathematically modeled, and that suicide is very complicated. I'm going to try to break this issue down mathematically as clearly as I can.

*In a large enough sample, all things will be roughly equal between these two groups regarding physical and psychological resistance or susceptibility to stress. To deny this equality is to be racist or transphobic because it would imply that one group is innately weaker or stronger vs stress. Mathematically, it also makes no sense, so I won't deny these groups equality.

*some of these = signs would be better read as "approximately" signs or "directly proportional" signs, but I'm unable to make those here, so I used =

*There is a lot of interplay between the types of stress, which is why I gave them a multiplicative relationship, though an exponential or additive relationship would still prove the same point. 

******************************

internal pressures = sum of psychological stresses on the mind

external pressures = sum of all physical stresses on the body, environment

Likelihood of Individual Suicide = (internal pressures)(external pressures)

Rate of Suicide[SUB]Group[/SUB] = Sum of Individual Suicides within Group/# of persons within Group

Rate of Suicide[SUB]Group[/SUB] = (internal pressures)[SUB]Group[/SUB](external pressures)[SUB]Group[/SUB]

Rate of Suicide[SUB]Jews during the Holocaust[/SUB] = Rate of Suicide[SUB]Transgender persons[/SUB] 

(internal pressure)[SUB]Holocaust[/SUB](external pressures)[SUB]Holocaust [/SUB]= (internal pressures)[SUB]Transgender[/SUB](external pressures)[SUB]Transgender

[/SUB]
As external pressures can be reasonably quantified:
(external pressures)[SUB]Holocaust[/SUB] > (external pressures)[SUB]Transgender[/SUB]

Thus:
*(internal pressures)[SUB]Holocaust[/SUB] < (internal pressures)*[SUB]*Transgender*


[/SUB]So I'm not comparing apples to oranges at all--I'm mathematically equalizing both fruits. This isn't some "abuse tactic"; it's _math_. Since transgender persons are not under the degree of physical, external threats that Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust, it must reasonably be concluded that they are instead under overwhelming internal stress. It doesn't mean that I think less of one group of people, or that I believe psychological stresses have a greater or lesser influence than external stresses. There's no value judgement here.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 19, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> So I'm not comparing apples to oranges at all--I'm mathematically equalizing both fruits. This isn't some "abuse tactic"; it's _math_. Since transgender persons are not under the degree of physical, external threats that Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust, it must reasonably be concluded that they are instead under overwhelming internal stress. It doesn't mean that I think less of one group of people, or that I believe psychological stresses have a greater or lesser influence than external stresses. There's no value judgement here.




Your point only holds if you assume a monotonic relationship between the various stresses, but why wouldn't a polynomial or sinusoidal relationship exist between these variables? Are there empirical or theoretical reasons to justify a monotonic assumption?

Additionally, we know homosexual people were persecuted in the holocaust, sent to the same death camps, and so likely subject to the same 'external threats'. The suicide rates between these groups would be a more apt comparison, as we have taken out the huge variable that 80 years presents.

My point is that mathematical models proceed from numerous assumptions: simply stating 'it's maths' is insufficient to validate any model, or make any inferences from said model.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 19, 2019)

Where was all of this gender dys.... whatever, during the forties? Oh yeah.... We were in the midst of a world war. My bad...


----------



## Ma'am (Jul 25, 2019)

My take is that regardless of the causes of any human variation, humans do _have_ vast variations, on any given characteristic. So there will always be that bell curve, with most fitting under the fat part of the dome and a few who do not. 

I think it's not a trend of people becoming trans but a trend of trans people feeling safer to express it in today's more accepting environment. 

I don't think it's the same as people who think they are other species or non-human objects.

Trans people probably wouldn't only realize they're different upon reaching  the legal age of adulthood, but earlier, in childhood. 

I wouldn't doubt there are parents who push a child into a role for their own dysfunctional reasons, which is child abuse. But most probably just know their child and try their best in uncharted territory.

A generation ago, it was unthinkable for a boy to wear a dress to school, for example. So it takes some adjustment allowance for the older folks, too. 

There's a documentary series called _Lost in Transition _that follows married couples where a spouse comes out as trans. So that shows another side of it. It would have been far better all around if the trans spouse didn't feel they had to hide or repress it in the first place.


----------



## Invisibleflash (Jul 26, 2019)

OP, you are an old gal. Now it is new school, as many genders as colors in the rainbow. (kinda) 

Anyway, I'm with you. I'm old too. But I can go with the flow as I've been around bohemians most of my life. But here is the contradiction. The genderqueer proudly proclaim they are non-conforming. OK, fair enough, don't conform. But the non-conformers demand everyone else conform to them...don't they. 

We can only hope we don't get into any major wars. A country of genderqueer people won't be able to get down to business when it comes time for the nasty stuff.


----------



## KenTR (Aug 11, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> I revise my previous statement. I've been enlightened, and after much thought, realized that I am, indeed, a toaster oven.



Do you go out and beat up fags? Do you vote for politicians who support LGBT legislation? Do you believe transgender people are irreversibly mentally ill? No? Then you're not a toaster oven. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. How you express that opinion is what counts.

As a member of the L*G*BT community, I have issues with some aspects of this movement.

I don't understand how children can identify as gay or bi before they are even close to reaching sexual maturity, let alone adolescence. I think that, as a child, I may have had some kind of inkling that there was something different about me, but it was a very abstract feeling. I didn't understand it because I didn't understand the concept of sexual attraction. Just because a young boy is a little effeminate, it doesn't mean he's going to grow up gay. I played sports as a child, and I roughed it up with the boys in my neighborhood, so by that logic, I should be heterosexual. 

Because of the internet and our diets (as studies suggest), children are being sexualixed at an earlier age than when I was young. I see nine year old girls with shirts that say "DIVA" and shorts so short I can practically see their kidneys. How is that any different? It will be interesting to see how this generation fares when they become adults. 

As for the transgender issue, what troubles me is that, largely because of social media, I see a lot of it as a trend. Not _trend_ as in _temporary_, but as in _fashionable_. I don't care what anyone says: most people don't know who or what the hell they're about until they're well into their twenties. I'm speaking generally, here, not specifically about gender. But it still holds true that a clumsy, alienated seventeen year old is likely to label themselves  as "heteroqueeromantic" (or some equally indecipherable term that does not exist in medicine or psychology...yet) for purely social reasons. Their reasoning might be that since they're not being accepted by the status quo, why not join the ranks of the underdogs? The problem I have with this is that it diminishes the pain and struggle that true transgender people must navigate twenty four hours a day. It seems too many kids today strive to be a superstar on social media and a fraud in real life. 

Lastly, look up "Die Cis Scum mirror" (by M0rbo) on youtube. I don't even know where to begin with this one. To me, it qualifies as hate speech. I know I should probably peek at the comments but I also know that reading the comment section on youtube makes you lose IQ points, so I suppose I will have to take it at face value. 

Which is my point. I don't care if you're you're straight, gay, bi, transgender, trigender, whatevergender, the best thing you can do for yourself is to take _yourself_ at face value. 

And remember: it's a big world, and no matter how you feel, the other guy matters. If you have a problem with this, please remember that to 7.53 billion people, *you* are the "other guy".


----------



## Amnesiac (Aug 12, 2019)

Very well said, Ken. Well said, indeed. Thumbs up!

Being a musician, half-assed poet, and an artist, there seems to be a lot of gay people who are attracted to these fields. Consequently, although I am straight, I have a lot of gay friends, both male and female. No one makes a big deal about it. A friend "came out" to me, once. I said, "Okay... So, you want another beer, or what?" He looked at me and just... blinked, like he couldn't believe that I not only accepted him, it just wasn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, and mattered not one whit to our friendship whatsoever.

Something that I'm frustrated with: A person's sexuality is just one tiny facet of all that makes up an entire human being, and yet, people have made it front and center, the single most important aspect of their identity and existence. I just look at it and shrug. This person's gay, that person's straight, this person has green socks, and that one's wearing a stripy shirt.

Heh.... I was sitting in a restaurant with a gay buddy, and we were having lunch. There was this VERY flamboyant waiter who was mincing around, singing loudly, and just carrying on. He was otherwise a fantastic waiter, but OMG... He was over the top. My buddy leaned close and said, "Amnesiac, I'm gay. _That_ is a faggot."
My mouth hung open for a moment, and then we both just started crackin' up. LOL


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 12, 2019)

I think there is a big mistake and misuse of the words: gay, bisexual, and lesbian. Overtime they became insults used in a negative sense. But were used for civil rights movements. I think it is always being used in the context it was not meant. I won't be a judge of people who can be critical thinkers before they decide to use the word. It doesn't matter if anyone is different and the polticians not class decides who is equal or not. Reminds me a bit of Abraham lincoln and how blacks were discriminated.  In canada gay people are considered a minority. A friend of my brother wrote an essay on why people should be considered as such (minorities). When he was at john hopkins (was or still is the number 1 program for international relations). Basically hormonal changes aren't detected in time  and people change. I've seen other theories such as biology and social constructivism I believe it is called.  Because there is no science or much evidence people jump to conclusions. Back when the earth was flat, and now it is round. I hope this helps relieve some of the lack of understanding on how to approach the subject.


----------



## Amnesiac (Aug 12, 2019)

The only conclusion I've ever come to, all kidding and acerbic commentary aside: People vary. Soul has no gender. Love = love. We are all here to learn, and everyone is working on different things. What is easy for us may be difficult for someone else, and what is difficult for us, may be very simple to someone else. The best we can do is accept each other, have patience and compassion for each other, and as we each do this for ourselves, we are able to do this in an authentic way for others. We are all one in this great crazy ship of humanity on the cosmic sea of the universe.


----------



## KenTR (Aug 12, 2019)

I can relate to that. I don't even like using the term gay to describe myself. To me, gay means acting all catty, worshiping Lady Gaga and offering drinks with little pink umbrellas in them. I'm not self-loathing. I'm open about it. Many people are surprised when they hear about me. But then I see photos of the gay pride parade and feel embarrassed. Too many (gay..not trans) men dressed up as women, or dressed up in leather and gyrating on the top of a parade float. I don't want to be associated with the distorted image they portray. This is one of the reasons I recently got banned from a gay forum I was posting on. So much for tolerance.



Amnesiac said:


> Something that I'm frustrated with: A person's sexuality is just one tiny facet of all that makes up an entire human being, and yet, people have made it front and center, the single most important aspect of their identity and existence. I just look at it and shrug. This person's gay, that person's straight, this person has green socks, and that one's wearing a stripy shirt.



Me too. In a way, the whole gay pride thing is based on a conundrum. How do you express that your sexuality is what makes you different when it is that same sexuality that marginalizes you? Above, I mentioned swishing it up at the gay pride parade. To me, this is a little like the participants of the annual Puerto Rican parade brandishing knives and eating tacos. I should probably stop here.

Being intelligent creatures, human beings have found all sorts of ways to both internalize and over-express our sexuality. Capitalism has co-opted sex with great success. Why do we need a picture of an attractive woman to sell a box of paper clips? Our rampant libidos may have been necessary in ancient times, but these days, babies are less likely to die shortly after birth or be carried off by wolves. Yet so far, evolution hasn't seemed to care about adjusting our sexual impulses to fit with modern times. It should. Climate change isn't really caused by too many tin cans in garbage dumps: it's caused by too much fucking. Once again, I'll stop here.

But thanks for your post. Being open about my sexuality is a double edged sword. On one hand, I have probably alienated more than a few people who might have otherwise enriched my life, but on the other, as you said, sexuality is such a small part of our lives. If you remove its connection to procreation, which is of course a necessary thing, it becomes almost insignificant. So why should it matter so much to me that people stop trying to hook me up with their sisters? I'm not sure I have an answer for that.


----------

