There's Something About Mirium

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah because that's what plato was talking about, empirically discovered genetic explanations for gender.

Who was talking about Plato?

Besides, "genetic explanations for gender"? What? Genetics explains why women differ from men in certain ways, agreed. But if we come across a man who is more like a woman than a man (or vice versa) what's the point of sticking with calling them a women just because their genes may or may not be a certain way?

Similarly, we can "empirically discover" atomic explanations for the characteristics of a diamond. But if we came across another substance which was exactly the same as diamond in general characteristics but was made of silicon instead of carbon (say) why not just call it a diamond outside of a science lab?

[LHC]

its a woman

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Similarly, we can "empirically discover" atomic explanations for the characteristics of a diamond. But if we came across another substance which was exactly the same as diamond in general characteristics but was made of silicon instead of carbon (say) why not just call it a diamond outside of a science lab?

It wouldn't be a diamond though, it'd be called something else. You don't call a ruby a garnet, or vice versa, do you?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It wouldn't be a diamond though, it'd be called something else. You don't call a ruby a garnet, or vice versa, do you?

Do they have the same look/feel/etc?

I probably would if they do. To be honest, I don't call them anything since I don't often come into contact with precious rubies in my daily dealings as a housing professional.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Do they have the same look/feel/etc?

Garnet.

Ruby.

(Obviously the second hasn't been dealt with in the same way as the first has)

[Dante Hicks]

It's kind of difficult to tell from that, but yes, I probably would call them the same thing then. I'd probably call them both rubies (as that's a more common term to me). Obviously I can't tell if they have the same "other" characteristics from that (e.g. weight, feel, capacity to withstand heat, etc.) - but presuming it's all the same then why not?

Sure, if I was a jeweller I'd use different term, but that's my point. For the layman, it makes no difference - unless there is a characteristic which matters. The difference between Cubic Zirconia (or whatever it's blasted called) and Diamond is not just in atomic structure - diamond actually has different properties.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Zirconia.

[Dante Hicks]

Thank you.

[Marilyn Manson]

Jakiri is King of teh Jews.




Sorry, I meant 'jewels.'

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who was talking about Plato?

Well me for one.

Besides, "genetic explanations for gender"? What? Genetics explains why women differ from men in certain ways, agreed. But if we come across a man who is more like a woman than a man (or vice versa) what's the point of sticking with calling them a women just because their genes may or may not be a certain way?

Because that's what they are? Seriously dude, Jackson is still an African-American/black/****** despite the fact he ****ed up his face and skin. I'm not saying they can't go out and wear dresses or make-up or invite some guy of similar leanings back to their place for a bit of fun but he'll still be a man in the sense that the man or woman issue is decided at birth by them funny chromosones mixing in a particular way. I'm hardly going to object to them calling themselves something else though, hell I think I'm Jesus so I should probably allow others a bit of leeway.

Similarly, we can "empirically discover" atomic explanations for the characteristics of a diamond. But if we came across another substance which was exactly the same as diamond in general characteristics but was made of silicon instead of carbon (say) why not just call it a diamond outside of a science lab?

I'm pretty sure diamonds can't decide to have a sex-change operation (As in the element of "choice" involved in the gender question renders the example rather irrelevant.)


This is as close to a serious reply as you're getting from me anyways.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Seriously dude, Jackson is still an African-American/black/****** despite the fact he ****ed up his face and skin.

He doesn't actually look white anyway. He just looks weird. But yeah, if there was a better operation around which could "make someone white" (or white looking) and they were a person who acted/sounded "white" (whatever that means) then yeah, they'd be white for the purposes of observation. Obviously genetics matter more there due to having kids and stuff (their kids would still be ******s or half-breeds after all).

I don't see what choice has got to do with anything. There are men born who just look feminine. Which was T&F's point earlier. His transexual friend looked like a girl before (s)he started wearing women's clothes/etc/etc. Those sort of people are in a half-way house and if they ask to be called "she" then why not oblige them?

[JonnyBGood]

Because I don't like freaks?



PS Imagine Jackson's kids with a black woman. "Hay, they're totally black "

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Because I don't like freaks?

Don't hate yourself.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Don't hate yourself.

I'm a self-hating white person.


That reminds me of stormfront, I think I'll go back and pay them a visit again!

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't see what choice has got to do with anything. There are men born who just look feminine. Which was T&F's point earlier. His transexual friend looked like a girl before (s)he started wearing women's clothes/etc/etc. Those sort of people are in a half-way house and if they ask to be called "she" then why not oblige them?

So it only applies to people who looked kind of feminine to start with?

I wonder if I suddenly decided I was a 70 year old man stuck in a 20-odd year old body whether I could slap some make up on and start claiming my pension to avoid working.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

I wonder if I suddenly decided I was a 70 year old man stuck in a 20-odd year old body whether I could slap some make up on and start claiming my pension to avoid working.

*That's a terrible analogy, because:

a) Who ever heard of a 70-yr-old in a 20-yr-old's body?

b) Transexuals want to claim the life they know they should have been born into, not dodge abstract concepts,

c) Transgendered people don't do what they do just because they don't fancy taking on the work involved with going through the system. You think transexuals have it easy? That society is "too soft" on them? Bitterness overload duder.



* But you should definitely try that and report back, stat!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

I wonder if I suddenly decided I was a 70 year old man stuck in a 20-odd year old body whether I could slap some make up on and start claiming my pension to avoid working.

Hmmm, I agree with Sayonara, that's a not a great argument.

First of all, there aren't any signifcant additional benefits to being female (in terms of entitlements to welfare), so that's not a concern here. (There are things like maternity/paternity leave, but that wouldn't apply to trannies anyway, and the EU will probably do something weird like equalise it anyway - or share a single entitlmenet across both partners).

Second, you don't "get to claim your pension" just because you're 70. Well, not really at least. A lot of the pension (most of it) is only available to those who have paid enough national insurance contributions - which obviously wouldn't apply to you. You'd need to apply for Income Support (which young people can do anyway). Basically the pension is supposed not to be rewarding old age, but a lifetime of contribution. There are "old people benefits" though, like the winter fuel benefits, free-travel in parts of the country, etc.

More generally though, I suppose any rational system wouldn't look at age but capacity. I agree if you were a 20 year old who through some kind of rare ageing disease had the physical attributes of a 70 year old you definitely should get the same benefits (in terms of the free bus pass and stuff) as the 70 year old. Why on earth not?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

And surprisingly enough, men have different properties than women. Like penises and stuff.

Operation paid up front
Now I show all my friends
My new designer ****
They think I'm kinda weird
But that's OK with me
Cause now I kick their ass
Playing from the ladies tee
Theres nothing finer than having a vagina

-- NOFX "My Vagina"

In short, do you cease to become a man if you have an operation to remove your penis?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are "old people benefits" though, like the winter fuel benefits, free-travel in parts of the country, etc.

I think its wotth it just for free tv licence!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In short, do you cease to become a man if you have an operation to remove your penis?

You are what you (genuinely) think you are.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

no, you will simply be a penis-less man

You said earlier that if you have a penis, you are a man. If you don't have a penis anymore, how can you still be a man (according to your definition).

What if you are surgically given a "vagina"?

[JC]

If you have a Y chromosome you are a bloke - XY, or XXY or XYY

If you have no Y chromosome you are a woman.

Its pretty simple stuff.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by JC

If you have a Y chromosome you are a bloke - XY, or XXY or XYY

If you have no Y chromosome you are a woman.

Its pretty simple stuff.

So you're sayin man/woman is all down to genetics?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

because you were born with a man, and we should all respect what God has given, or we'll be next for the sacrificial ceremony ?

Damn you and your relentless logic.

OK then, that's fine as a definition, but I think you need to change your original statement. You said anyone could tell what gender they were by "looking down at themselves", which seems untrue since now you're saying whatever you're born with determines it. Either way is fine, but let's be consistet.

btw : I'm an atheist so I don't really give a shit what "God" gave me.

[JC]

Yep.

Sex is determined by your genes, you cant change it unless you are a yeast or one of those fancy fish.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I was assuming everyone on these boards havent had any sex operations, just like Mirium. She changed her looks, she changed how she acts, but she still has a penis, was born with one, and no matter what she does she will never be a woman by definition.

Yes, but what is this definition? You originally said it was all about the ****. Now it seems like it's not all about the ****.

p.s.: women have babies, men don't. is that a convincing argument?

Some women can't have babies, are they still women?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

If you have a Y chromosome you are a bloke - XY, or XXY or XYY

Do you normally have information about someone's chromosones when you speak to them / look at them / etc?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Flavius

Women were made to have babies (lolly roffle). If they can't have babies, they belong in the 2% fault region.

Surely you contradict yourself by calling them women? That or I don get what your sayin!

[Stew]

I thought you were (obviously wrongly) saying they wernt women cos they couldnt have kids

[Stew]

sup

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

Women were made to have babies (lolly roffle). If they can't have babies, they belong in the 2% fault region.

Hardly a "2% fault". Girls under the age of 10 are not "faulty" because they can't have children, and neither are women who are post-menopause.

It would take a medical miracle for either myself or my mother (who is 61) to have a child. It's not like we're equally female, or that she's "faulty".

As for your car analogy : You concede that car's that can't drive are still cars. And women who can't have kids are still women. So what's the point?

As for your bicycle point : Yes, I agree entirely. A bike with an engine with an engine wouldn't be a car. (it'd be a motorbike if anything but let's not go there). But that's because we're generally defining a car as some kind of frame, more than two wheels, etc, etc. If we're defining a woman as something with tits, a c*nt, etc - then that _could_ apply to a man after a sufficient number of operations. Similarly, if you were that way inclined you _COULD_ turn a bike into a car, if you ripped the damn thing apart, built a frame, added a lot of parts, etc, etc. It's not like the end product wouldn't be a car because it was originally created as a bike.

[Stew]

Like I said: you are what you genuinely believe you are.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

the point is that men without penis are still men

So you've abandoned your original definition, got a new one (about having babies) and condeded this doesn't apply sometimes anyway. You're basically now at a point of saying "a woman is someone who is born a woman" which is essentially meaningless.

edit : I wasn't "designed" for anything. Let's not get all Muslim about this.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

All definitions stand.

You are born a man, you are a man.
You have a penis, you are a man.
You dont have a penis but were born a man, you are a man.
You have a penis but it doesnt function, you are still a man.

what's so hard to understand ?

But a lot of your "men" don't have penises, they have vaginas which means the definition "you have a penis, you are a man" is invalid. If a woman had a penis grafted on, I presume you'd still argue she was a woman, right (irrespective of whether it worked or not)?

Plus, your definitions are circular. What is your definition of a man? How is someone born a man? And why is that definition fixed?

[Intrepid00]

I can't believe you guys have made 3 pages now of this crap....









Yea I can.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I can't believe you guys have made 3 pages now of this crap....

You love it.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But a lot of your "men" don't have penises, they have vaginas which means the definition "you have a penis, you are a man" is invalid. If a woman had a penis grafted on, I presume you'd still argue she was a woman, right (irrespective of whether it worked or not)?

Plus, your definitions are circular. What is your definition of a man? How is someone born a man? And why is that definition fixed?

the statements are quite obviously meant to be connected by OR and not by AND.

basically i see it the way JC does: Y chromosome = man

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

Sometimes aberrations happen, but let's just skip that.

Surely we're talking about "aberrations"? (albeit of the mental form)

'Men' are born with penises. 'Women' are born with the vagina.

OK, the only solid thing you've got there is this. Everything else is "sometimes" or "usually". We're not talking about what's USUALLY the case. If we're sticking to broad generalisations then we may as well say men like war movies or beer or football or whatever.

Basically the things I had issues with was when you said :
1. Men have penises. But not all of them.
2. Women can have babies. But not all of them.

btw : I don't see what men putting their ****s into vaginas has to do with anything, in the definition of a man. There's plenty of homofags out there who would disagree where you put the ****, not to speak lovers of oral or anal sex.

I think it would have been quicker if you cut out (ho ho) all the stuff about men having penises (which is evidently not always the case according to your criteria) and simply said that men are _born_ with penises. Although even this would probably prove incorrect in some instances of physical deformities.

p.s. The moment I read your post the NOFX song I referenced earlier started to play

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

the statements are quite obviously meant to be connected by OR and not by AND.

Yes, but even as OR statements they're basically circular and the whole mess can be summarised down to "Your a man if your a man" which is kind of pointless, as I mentioned.

basically i see it the way JC does: Y chromosome = man

As I've said, that's fair enough for a scientific definition. But I've never met anyone about whom I knew what chromosones they had (at least, not knew in a scientific test sort of sense). So clearly I rely on other criteria in day to day life (e.g. physical appearance, sound of their voice, etc, etc).

Maybe you go round doing genetic experiments on people, but I don't.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Maybe you go round doing genetic experiments on people, but I don't.

"in every day life" i don't care much wether it's a man/woman or a tranny i'm dealing with. if he/she looks like a man then this means to me he/she wants to be treated like a man and that's fair enough for me - so far i can't say i have knowingly come across a tranny.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I was referring to babies born with a penis and the vagina at the same time.

I know. (where do they fit in on your definition btw). But it's silly to presume that aberrations can only be physical. There are people born who act very feminine (as far as this means anything) while holding mainly male physical characteristics.

We need to make generalisations when we're describing something IN GENERAL.

If you don't, you will have to make a separate definition for everyone and their dog.

The problem is that I'm fairly sure that any rule we make for 99% of people won't apply for the type of people under discussion. We're not discussing what makes "the average" man a man. We're talking about the relatively small minority of people who start off as men and then grow breasts and "become female" later on. Generalisations don't really cut it there.

I'd also say that your'e right, we do need a new definition for each individual. Everyone's different. Of course, block criteria (male/female, black/white/asian) are still useful in conversation. When using such terms, we can either look for some sort of objective measure, or just defer to the preference of what the individual in question wants to be called. If someone has very pale skin but chooses to be referred to as African, I don't see any major problem with calling them African (again, I'm talking outside scientific studies now). It's not like it really matters most of the time.

With people who hold significantly female characteristics (breasts, a vagina, female sounding voice, feminine facial features and so on) it seems rather spiteful (and illogical) to refer to them as male just because they hold a particular chromosone or because they had a penis x years ago.

1. Men have penises. If they dont it's because they chopped it off.
2. Women can have babies. If they can't it's because something is wrong.

This is true, but I don't see why it matters.

It's just my way of claiming that gays are aberrations.
They are men who behave like women, or something like that, haven't quite figured it out yet

Women **** men in the ass? Cos quite a few gays do this. Anyway, yes I'm sure some gay men display female-esque behaviour. So what? Aside from demonstrating how silly the two gender model is (remember, they have ****s so they're men on your schema) I don't see why this matters.

And let's not go there with this aberration stuff. We'll be on "natural" before you know it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

if he/she looks like a man then this means to me he/she wants to be treated like a man and that's fair enough for me

Completley agree.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But I've never met anyone about whom I knew what chromosones they had (at least, not knew in a scientific test sort of sense). So clearly I rely on other criteria in day to day life (e.g. physical appearance, sound of their voice, etc, etc).

Maybe you go round doing genetic experiments on people, but I don't.

What difference does this actually make?
Making a judgement of someone's sex based on voice/appearance/whatever doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what sex they actually *are*
I've seen some scary women out there, who I thought were men at the time and have since been told otherwise. That doesn't make them any less of a woman.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Making a judgement of someone's sex based on voice/appearance/whatever doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what sex they actually *are*.

Well, the "underlying truth" of their DNA doesn't really matter either. We're talking (or originally we were) about what behaviour we'd display to a specific individual (this Mirium bird or whatever).

What chromosones someone has doesn't seem really important for questions like that.

For the more philosophical question of "What gender is a transexual" I'd say that their beliefs/thought patterns/etc were more important than their chemical configuration. Not that I think there is only two genders though, they don't appear wide enough to account for the wide range of behaviour displayed by humans.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, the "underlying truth" of their DNA doesn't really matter either. We're talking (or originally we were) about what behaviour we'd display to a specific individual (this Mirium bird or whatever).

What chromosones someone has doesn't seem really important for questions like that.

For the more philosophical question of "What gender is a transexual" I'd say that their beliefs/thought patterns/etc were more important than their chemical configuration. Not that I think there is only two genders though, they don't appear wide enough to account for the wide range of behaviour displayed by humans.

Somewhat depends on how you're going to define gender, which based on this thread seems to be some arbitrary combiantion of factors that varies from the opinions of person to person.

If we're doing a 'your gender is equivalent to your sex which is defined at birth by your genetic makeup' (and that we're excluding the rare 'my chromosomes don't work proper, mate' option) then I'd have to side with the 'cut your dick off all you want, you aren't a woman' brigade.

If we're doing a 'your gender is a classifcation based on your behaviour' then sure, she's 'female', whatever.

The following cannot be changed without some shiny new DNA resequencing machine: If you're born male then any genetic material you are to pass on in the course of reproduction will be male in origin. And I'm of the opinion that 'sex' relates to that and that alone. Let gender mean whatever you want, it doesn't change your 'sex'.

[Evergreen]

IT's very simple, check the thighs, if they are showing leg and at any time when they are standing there isn't the slightest hint of a flaw to the back of her thighs then it's a bloke.

You know it's mens legs in all them tight advert/posters where it's just the legs in tights pictured.

[sayonara]

/tabling the motion that in the interests of being mutually informed, we ought to arrange for Flavius to spend the day shopping with a shim.

[djbass]

I can not agree that gender can be defined by behaviour as I have met many men that act like women but I would not consider that conclusive enough to call them women.

The majority of genetics between boths sexes are identical, and it is a well known fact that developing fetuses are virtually indistinguishable in form until the last stages. The changes that do occur are mostly concerned with hormones and reproductive organs. That last one is a sticking point, you can very well slap a vagina and some breasts onto your body but without the matching pipework (say uterus, felopian tubes and overies) irrespective of whether it works you are just a man with accessories as far as I am concerned.

Grafting a tail and a pouch to my body does not make me a kangaroo.

[Dante Hicks]

If we had the surgical capability to put in the "matching pipework" would they become more of a woman in your eyes?

[djbass]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If we had the surgical capability to put in the "matching pipework" would they become more of a woman in your eyes?

Yes, but it can not just be slap bang here is an extra appendage for you it has to be biologically stable rather than just some foreign entity embeded.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

way to ignore the countless arguments precisely against this line of argument dude. But tahnks for repeating the same tired stale arguments for us.

Gender is matter of how you are treated and how you wish to be treated based on physical appearence, behaviour and yes alterable physical characteristics. However if some looks like a girl, behaves like a girl and feels like a girl then the fact that they have to have an operation to change a part of themselves few people will even see seems kind of irrelevent.

I did no such thing, I have read through the entire thread and consider my point to be an extension of some of the views that were already presented and an attempt to address the arguments made against them.

I see no part offering an affirmation that your view is any more correct than the others, only that two sides have been presented both with counter arguments summing up with the same degree of validity.

I do not see how mimmicking something (both in physical & behavioral form) can count as reclassification.

I thought of another hopefully better example (as it does not involve animals since people seem to be biased about that as an example on here). If I say get some kind of pigment treatmant to turn my skin green, maybe a bit of surgery to to have my ears pointed and eyes enlarged. Then I launch myself into space and live there. Perhaps I feel I missed my calling in life, that I was not meant for this planet and I am much more fitting on an alternative one. Now that I look like an alien, behave like an alien and I feel like an alien can I be genuinely classed as one, or am I really still just a human pretending to be an alien?