Question about "transgender" people to ponder

[Elspeth]

I am talking about the actual on the books law. I think it's an interesting topic. I side with chromosomes unless they have voluntarily made alterations to meet any laws in regards to gender transformation.

The issue underneath transgendered people is that the chromosomes may not be the whole story. In other words, biological sex and gender identification may be handled by separate biological processes or by a cluster of genetic markers. We simply don't know enough about genes yet and the multitude of interactions. (That's one of the reasons I am against GM foods--Monsanto scientists have too crude an understanding of genetics to start messing with genes and creating artificial seeds.)

[NJCardFan]

Sorry, still a guy. Lobotomies don't change chromosomes.

Tell me: if you add a penis to a woman surgically, does that make her a man?

Which reminds me of the hullabaloo a few years back about a "man" carrying his wife's baby when in fact it was a transsexual woman who kept it's plumbing. It's also the same as Michael Jackson. No matter how he tried to change his appearance and color, he was still black.

[Elspeth]

Which reminds me of the hullabaloo a few years back about a "man" carrying his wife's baby when in fact it was a transsexual woman who kept it's plumbing.

Well that's the point. When men joke around, they compare a male without a penis (for whatever reason) to a woman, but he's not a woman. He's a guy without a penis. It takes a whole hellava lot more to have a woman than the absence of a penis. And it takes more to have a guy then pumping hormones into someone and adding prosthetic devices.

Of course, the whole thing is probably a lot more complicated than a simple binary. There are probably a bunch of different genes involved in creating what we think of as the prototypical woman and the prototypical guy. Variations in some of these genes probably create different gender identifications and sexual orientations, unrelated to the anatomical sex. We just don't know enough.

[FlaGator]

I think the question is interesting in that nationality is not an essential characteristic of a human being but biological sex is. Yet, it is harder to get society (and the law, apparently) to accept you as a different nationality than if, these days, you claim to be a different sex contrary to your anatomy. It is becoming more acceptable legally these days to claim another biological sex, but you still need a bloody passport to claim legitimate nationality. You see, I was only half joking when I said that it's because women don't have an army like countries do.

Think of it this way: Ru Paul cannot go to Australia and tell Australians how to be Australians--especially, not citing personal experience. But he CAN have a TV show where he shows real, genetically female WOMEN how to be women. Actually, what he is teaching them is acting like a drag queen, which, in itself, is female caricature. But think about it. Imagine Chaz Bono teaching men to be men. You think Rock or any genetic male would take lessons? I imagine that one day Bono (or someone like her/him) will do this, and there wlll be a big to-do, but in the end, there's no protection on the borders of gender and no passport.

So Hubie's original question (or statement, if the question was merely rhetorical) is actually quite intriguing philosophically.

If we fall back on the article I posted yesterday then the concept of transgendered people is not logical. Considering the essential and accidental characteristics, a woman is defined by her chromosomes and sex organs which are essential for her womanhood. She needs these characteristics to live out the biological existance that nature has defined for her. The clothing she chooses to wear is an accidental characteristic in that a man can put on woman's clothing but he is still a man. A woman can't be a woman and have a working penis. A woman can't be a women and have both an X and a Y chromosome. You can't add something that looks like penis to a woman and call her a man

In short you can put ribbons on a pig's head but it is still a pig. (pardon the analogy Rock).

[JB]

Why do you care?

Just remember that when it is used against you.

Besides, maybe he wants to be Australian. He wasn't born that way but so what. From what you say, that doesn't matter. He can be whatever he wants in spite of what he was born with. He wants to be Australian.

Tell me: if you add a penis to a woman surgically, does that make her a man?

Chastity Bono had a frank and beans sewn on. She is now a dude. Supposedly.

[Hubie]

Why do you care? A couple of days ago I took my mom's dog to the veterinarian.

Are you sure your mom's dog is a dog. Maybe it's a cat... on the inside... Hey, I know DNA says it's a dog, but maybe it actually feels like it's really a cat.

[Rockntractor]

In short you can put ribbon's on a pig's head but it is still a pig. (pardon the analogy Rock).

[BadCat]

The issue underneath transgendered people is that the chromosomes may not be the whole story. In other words, biological sex and gender identification may be handled by separate biological processes or by a cluster of genetic markers. We simply don't know enough about genes yet and the multitude of interactions. (That's one of the reasons I am against GM foods--Monsanto scientists have too crude an understanding of genetics to start messing with genes and creating artificial seeds.)

How about we dissect the sick freaks and find out?

[Adam Wood]

Tell me: if you add a penis to a woman surgically, does that make her a man?

Chastity Bono had a frank and beans sewn on. She is now a dude. Supposedly.

Ah, yes. The elusive adadichtome procedure.

[Elspeth]

In short you can put ribbon's on a pig's head but it is still a pig. (pardon the analogy Rock).

ROFLMAO! I got this picture of Rock defending his pigs' honor with a shotgun.