Well, I heard some people talk about it, and decided to bring it into the forums. Well, I think that becoming transgender is just not right. God gives you one body it is just not right to change your gender. What do you people think?
...ok, yes, wearing clothes may be the most VISUAL aspect of it, but my point is what does it matter? Did you have a point when you said that seeing it grosses you out or did you just decide other people might like to hear your ideas about fashion?
I also can't help feeling sorry for them though, it's basically a disease but it can't kill you.
You had to see this coming, Ricador, but I am going to laugh and disagree with you, heavily. If you asked any full fledged transgendered person if they think it's like a disease I am more than willing to bet they will tell you no. It's not a disease, it's a condition. There is a real difference there and I think it's disrespectful to that group of people to say that they are "diseased". Arthritis is a condition, HIV/AIDS is a disease, get the picture?
Weeman, I'm not even sure that it's even appropriate to define a condition in the way you've done it from your examples- perhaps this is more to do with your understanding of arthritis (arthritis can be part of an autoimmune disease as in rheumatoid arthritis) and the various etymologies of the words 'condition' and 'disease'.
Which is why I'm going to cut through all the semantical BS and use an entirely different term: pathology. Because here I can be entirely clear- the reason using the term disease can be insulting is because it implies pathology. Technically speaking, like other 'conditions' (which I use in the 'state-of-being' or 'characteristic' sense), being transgendered is not considered pathological unless found to be distressing to the person or somehow being directly associated with interruption or disruption to daily living.
The psychological distress that results from the stigma of such things as being transgendered, for example, can result in it being appropriate to describe the transgender aspect of a person as being pathological. Which I find ironic since it implies that calling a transgendered person disease is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But ultimately it is not that ironic, since much of medicine must have recourse to normative standards seeing as it deals with people as a whole.
One has to think about what 'transgender' really means in proper context. For example I...hm, maybe I don't want to freak you out :P Let us say that I don't relate to my gender...but not because I feel that I'm of the female gender (ostensibly I'm male and have particularly male traits), but because on some level I don't relate to gender in general.
Which is why I'm going to cut through all the semantical BS
Dude, these threads are, like, 90% semantics. Just watch, we'll have people wanting to define sex and gender separately, and no one will agree on what either one means.
But ultimately it is not that ironic
How ironic!
So, uh, yeah. Transgenders, huh? What do the new AGers think?
It's there bodies, if they want to alter themselves in a way that makes them look like the opposite sex I don't see why I should care.
So you would consider a male-to-female transsexual male? Anyway, transsexuality isn't just about the physical aspect - altering the body is just one part.
Also, does anyone know if the word "tranny" is correct? Seems a bit derogatory to me.
So you would consider a male-to-female transsexual male? Anyway, transsexuality isn't just about the physical aspect - altering the body is just one part.
I consider them someone who has been surgically altered by choice. Why should I care what someone wants to do with there body? If I knew someone personally who wanted to have a sex change I would ask them to be absolutely sure that's what they wanted first. When it comes to more intimate affairs I would expect them to be upfront about it since then it involves another party.
I consider them someone who has been surgically altered by choice.
(The following "you" isn't directed specifically at anyone, was just this line that made me consider it.)
You meet person. Person says hi. You register what sex the person appears to be and most likely conclude that the person is said sex, based on appearance/voice/behaviour. You develop some form of relationship (in this example, meant as with a colleague or a friend, not a partner).
Person eventually tells you it used to be of the other sex.
Would you consider this person to be of the sex you got to know them as, or as a person of one sex who chose to alter themselves to the other?
Just as friends if they were a nice person it really wouldn't matter to me.
Agreed. But even if it doesn't matter to you what they are, even if it doesn't change how you'd feel about the friendship, wouldn't you still have an opinion and perceive them as either sex? Question intended to make you decide between the "born as" and the "acting as" and think about which is more important for the perception others have of who they are.
Personally I'd think of them as what they present themselves as. 'S why androgynous people confuse me a bit.
Agreed. But even if it doesn't matter to you what they are, even if it doesn't change how you'd feel about the friendship, wouldn't you still have an opinion and perceive them as either sex?
If how the present them self is how they want to be treated then fine. I guess I don't really understand the point of the question.
