WTF Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 But if you removed any differentiation between the sexes, there would be no transsexuals. That's an interesting point. From what I gather, there isn't necessarily a requirement for 'reassignment' surgery - which raises the question. What would be the differentiator between sexes? I don't understand what you mean in terms of the requirement for surgery, could you please explain Concrete? The differentiator of sexes is down to what you have between your legs. Doctors make an arbitrary determination on sex for intersex babies. If a baby is far with a very small penis or a very large clitoris, i.e. they are in between, the doctor makes a measurement and depending on the outcome determines wheter it is a boy or a girl. Sometimes this involves snipping away to make the baby 'more' female. It demonstrates how sex is recognised. almost, certain cheating athletes had sex determined by DNA testing, whether it's a big clit or keyboarders dick, DNA testing for the gender gene would be definitive regardless of the bits you do or don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 almost, certain cheating athletes had sex determined by DNA testing, whether it's a big clit or keyboarders dick, DNA testing for the gender gene would be definitive regardless of the bits you do or don't have. Oh yeah, I see what you mean, but in the manner in which our understanding of the sexes has developed and changed it has historically and still fundamentally rests on the recognition of what gonads you have. Though I didn't know that happens with athletes, do they test everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Wrote most of this earlier, but had a little emergency and didn't post it and now other posters have covered most of it - but what the heck I'll put it up for comment! As John Wright has pointed out Houghton's objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. Gender reassignment has been a recognized procedure for a long time and is a long and arduous process - as far as I'm aware the person involved has to live successfully for a year in their desired gender before the operation. The bill is about things like which prison a transsexual should be sent to, who they can marry etc and not about whether they should be treated on the NHS which is a debate which was settled along time ago and which has been basically the same on the Island as the UK. Knoxville, it may seem very easy for you with your "has willy: man, has fanny: woman" attitude, but firstly not everyone is born with clearly defined genitals, its a simple fact that development goes wrong in a reasonably high number of cases. Nowadays most such babies are rearranged - either a nip of a tuck, and often that is enough. But quite simply Knoxville - there is lots more to being a male than having a dick. The structure of the brain is also related to gender and studies of transsexuals do point to their brains being closer to their desired than their birth gender. The brain also has a certain plasticity which means the environment does influence gender. The Knoxvilles of this world seem to live in a simple world far removed from its messy reality – why don’t you try reading the Wasp Factory – maybe it will give you a slight insight into the real world – it’s a good read and may challenge your preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QLD-Bloke Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 But if you removed any differentiation between the sexes, there would be no transsexuals. That's an interesting point. From what I gather, there isn't necessarily a requirement for 'reassignment' surgery - which raises the question. What would be the differentiator between sexes? I don't understand what you mean in terms of the requirement for surgery, could you please explain Concrete? The differentiator of sexes is down to what you have between your legs. Doctors make an arbitrary determination on sex for intersex babies. If a baby is far with a very small penis or a very large clitoris, i.e. they are in between, the doctor makes a measurement and depending on the outcome determines wheter it is a boy or a girl. Sometimes this involves snipping away to make the baby 'more' female. It demonstrates how sex is recognised. almost, certain cheating athletes had sex determined by DNA testing, whether it's a big clit or keyboarders dick, DNA testing for the gender gene would be definitive regardless of the bits you do or don't have. Not sure if you're just simplifying for fun and laughter but the old-fashioned sex-check in athletics was a physical inspection by a doctor/medical type. It was only later that they introduced CHROMOSOMAL checks (not DNA checking). Chromosomes are essentially packages of genes - you have 46 chromosomes as 23 pairs. One of these pairs is a deteminant of gender - women are XX men are XY - and simple microscopy can determine which you are. This then was the basis of the improved testing method. Note that you can be XXY or XXX as cell division to form gametes is not perfect (see also Downs syndrome where an additional chromosome 21 causes a number of development issues) Since the y chromosome carries a bunch of genes that when expressed turn you male - we all started out as "female" embryos - there is no single 'gender gene' and a defect in the chromosome may result in no or only partial expression of these genes. Who knows what happens then. Remember that embryo development is hugely complex with a vast array of feedback loops that determine when each gene switches on, at what level and to what effect. (see effects of thalidomide - repeated destruction of cells during arm formation didn't stop the feedback that meant that in extreme cases when the mother stopped taking the drug the cells still formed 'fingers' even though there was no arm or hand in place) This is all genotype level stuff - pheontype (the effect of the environment on genetic expression) throws a huge extra layer of problems into the mix. Embryos only develop in the womb and this is an immunicological battleground between mother and foetus. In second and later pregancies, the mother's immune system is more "developed/better prepared" and some studies suggest a link between sexuality and birth position and number of siblings. (Note: this is disputed). Identical twins can have radically different sexual preferences so it seems that it cannot possibly be solely genetic. Note also that gene expression determines the structure and size of the brain but it is early (and post-partum) development that fixes the neurological connections that determine personality, intelligence and all the other 'interesting' stuff that makes us individuals. Add phenotype it the 'dualist' christian/Jewish/moslem position that the 'you' that is 'you' is independent of the physical body (or else what exactly gets to go to heaven) and you get to have a whole debate about male minds/souls in female bodies and vice versa. I'm male. I know I'm male and I'm only sexually attracted to women. It seems that I'm lucky in that this makes me 'normal' but - and here's a thought - I didn't CHOOSE any of that. It's just how I am and I can't, couldn;t and don;t want to change any of it. It is an old truism but those who think there's some kind of choice at work are often those who are most confused about gender and sexuality and shout loudest so we don't think that they're indecent/perverted. Just my view (and Mr Houghton is entitled to his as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Wrote most of this earlier, but had a little emergency and didn't post it and now other posters have covered most of it - but what the heck I'll put it up for comment! Nowadays most such babies are rearranged - either a nip of a tuck, and often that is enough. But quite simply Knoxville - there is lots more to being a male than having a dick. The structure of the brain is also related to gender and studies of transsexuals do point to their brains being closer to their desired than their birth gender. The brain also has a certain plasticity which means the environment does influence gender. The matter of brain structures does 'trouble' me somewhat in its suppositions. If it were conclusively determined that brain structures (viz. the amygdala) shows size differentials depending on what sex you are then how does that subsequently lead to an awareness of your gender. How does it relate to recognising for yourself whether you are a man or woman. Your understanding of whether you are a man or a woman can only come from your identification with others. On the other hand, animals are not born with 'empty' brains, the different sexes of many animals often show starkly different behavioural roles. I tend to think that brain structures and hormones levels could have an effect on the behaviour of either sex but gender is largely, if not wholly, a social construct. Not sure about it though. I think there is such a dearth of understanding on how the brain works that it is too early to make conclusions. (editing: being contradictory without realising it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 LDV I don't really see the point you are making - we are animals, we've evolved and so have our sexual pecadillos from behaviours of our animal ancestors. Most animals have clear "gender" roles, and there are also examples of "gender" confusion if that is the right word in the animal world. I think you will find that many gender roles are common throughout human society - that to me points to them being far more fundamental than a social construct - as QLD-bloke says I don't see choice as being alot to do with any of this - which surely would be the case if it was a social construct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 tell me declan are you ever confused as to what i mean when i post..?? TBH I usually ignore what you post. nah you dont arsewipe.. im too pretty to be ignored.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali the Destroyer Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I would read this thread, but I had better things to do like sticking hot pins in my eyes :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 LDV I don't really see the point you are making - we are animals, we've evolved and so have our sexual pecadillos from behaviours of our animal ancestors. Most animals have clear "gender" roles, and there are also examples of "gender" confusion if that is the right word in the animal world. I think you will find that many gender roles are common throughout human society - that to me points to them being far more fundamental than a social construct - as QLD-bloke says I don't see choice as being alot to do with any of this - which surely would be the case if it was a social construct. The point I am making is that I am sceptical of arguments that place the reasons behind transexuality and existence of gender as something to do with different brain structure. There are many gender roles, you are quite right, and in some societies are not limited to a dichotomy. This would point to being more about social costruct than biological determination. The issue with choice in respect of gender would be the same as with sexuality in my mind. You don't consciously choose how your identity and self awareness develops. My views are based on deconstructionist perspectives of gender, I am open to the possibility of brain structures playing some form of role, but like I said I must be sceptical given what I believe to be true of gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The point I am making is that I am sceptical of arguments that place the reasons behind transexuality and existence of gender as something to do with different brain structure. I think it's exactly that, well, not the physical structure - more what I would call 'self' - what defines the person. They are what they are (or what they believe they are) - it's not too far fetched to think the 'person' was born as one sex and their body developed as another. Consciousness, the self, soul - or whatever you want to call it, it's something you can't simply pin-point by looking at brain chemistry or DNA - a big part of neuroscience research. That's by no means limited to gender, it could be behaviour, happiness, depression etc. That's how I see it, and how I've seen people explain it - the 'person' is simply in the wrong body. Yes - something defines what makes up that person, quite what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Chromosomes are essentially packages of genes - you have 46 chromosomes as 23 pairs. One of these pairs is a deteminant of gender - women are XX men are XY - and simple microscopy can determine which you are. This then was the basis of the improved testing method. Note that you can be XXY or XXX as cell division to form gametes is not perfect... So what's 2x2+3y = z all about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 tell me declan are you ever confused as to what i mean when i post..?? TBH I usually ignore what you post. nah you dont arsewipe.. im too pretty to be ignored.. Maybe, but I can't see you. Your posts, however, are ugly jumbles of letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 perhaps you should just ignore them then boy.. shouldnt you still be in bed at this time of day with your fist wrapped around your cock declan .. or atleast wrapped around your partners cock.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Can the Government please explain why the DHSS paid for this person to have the operations to mutilate a perfectly normal body while at the same time say they dont have the funds to pay for more needed medical treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Can the Government please explain why the DHSS paid for this person to have the operations to mutilate a perfectly normal body while at the same time say they dont have the funds to pay for more needed medical treatments. either read the first post atleast or switch your comp off lee .. lazy twat thread isnt about some person who has had an operation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.