Is Caitlin Jenner a lesbian?

[Zoom-boing]

what jenner refers to as the new normal, is not REALLY saying that it's normal to be this or that, but only the new normal is a kinder gentler enlightenment which does not force people into closets out of shame...

As Caitlyn Jenner strives to make her own way in the world, it also appears she is trying to be a beacon of hope for others who choose the same path. Jenner has vowed that she will now live an authentic life with “no more secrets,” and her words of encouragement and resourceful blog seem to illuminate Jenner’s desire to be a support to others in the LGBTQ community who choose to do the same.


“Let’s live our true selves and make a positive difference doing it,” Jenner signs off.


Caitlyn Jenner Feels Responsibility To Represent Transgender Community Am I Doing It Right

His true self is a mental/body image dysmorphia/disorder and promoting it as 'normal' in any manner is wrong. Enlightenment my ass, they want to be treated like it's normal, everyday, live and let live. He's choosing to live a freakish life; I choose to continue to point out that he has a mental disorder and his choice of living a freakish life is not normal. And as long at leftists and the like insist on shoving this in the public's face and on kids, we won't be quiet, the pushback will not abate.

 

[Valerie]

jenner is just one free American. God bless.


no one is stopping you from speaking up, just like no one is keeping you from hanging a confederate flag.


feel free to be your freakish self!

 

[Papageorgio]

what jenner refers to as the new normal, is not REALLY saying that it's normal to be this or that, but only the new normal is a kinder gentler enlightenment which does not force people into closets out of shame...



As Caitlyn Jenner strives to make her own way in the world, it also appears she is trying to be a beacon of hope for others who choose the same path. Jenner has vowed that she will now live an authentic life with “no more secrets,” and her words of encouragement and resourceful blog seem to illuminate Jenner’s desire to be a support to others in the LGBTQ community who choose to do the same.


“Let’s live our true selves and make a positive difference doing it,” Jenner signs off.


Caitlyn Jenner Feels Responsibility To Represent Transgender Community Am I Doing It Right

He is still a he and he has to plans to become a she. Just as a white person wants to play black, Jenner is playing the part of a woman.

Neither is true, both have mental issues.

Both are allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves. It doesn't change facts. Jenner is still a he.

 

[Zoom-boing]

jenner is just one free American. God bless.


no one is stopping you from speaking up, just like no one is keeping you from hanging a confederate flag.


feel free to be your freakish self!

Jenner and people like him suffer from a disorder that makes them a freak of nature. He is free to be abnormal but he - and anyone else - will get called on the bullshit insisting that this abnormality is normal.

A flag that has evolved in its meaning over the years bothers you? Oh poor, poor you!

 

[EverCurious]

So I'm talking about religion's that have had trans-gender societies since like 10,000 BCE, and you're all still saying gender identity "swapping" is not normal? You guys are missing a few screws yourselves...

How about the /original/ American's? The "Two-spirit" people of many NA tribes were oft considered trans-gender ~ The Two-Spirit people of indigenous North Americans

So we're talking about something that happens globally, this is not a local phenomena. Population wise to gauge "normalcy", rough estimate... Well so far I've listed examples of tran-gender accepting societies in Asia and India, which covers about half of the east, and here's and example of trans in North America, which is about half of the west. If we figure even 1/4 of 1/2 of the global population (due to the religious connotation in beliefs of the Asian side) we'd be talking about roughly 1B identifying/being identified as trans-gender. Which would be roughly 1/7 of all humans on the planet being mentally-ill about their gender... I mean it's possible, perhaps one could even argue that is a "lower than expected" percentage of people to be mentally ill, but that would be talking about /all/ mental illnesses as a whole; in such a case trans-gender identity "illness" would make up something like 70% of all mental illnesses in the world - which when being realistically honest, would likely be rejected from classification as mental illness much like religion was.

I would figure that trans-gender identifiers would not be classified as mentally ill, but rather as "healthy" different. Similar to "biologically unique" folks, like left handers and my fellow synaesthesiast's; the mental/emotional capacities and functions are entirely normal but the wiring of the brain is different... This to my mind makes more sense, after all, the biological "difference," in-so-far-as the wiring of the brain, between male and female falls into the broad category of "healthy different" /anyway/ doesn't it? Which is to say there are distinct "markers" of genetic variation, hormones, and brain functioning of trans-gender identifiers - some are even classifying these as an actual biological difference.

Lets narrow down why you all believe gender dysphoria /wouldn't/ fall into the "healthy, just different" category?

"Health but different" is how it is /actually/ classified by a lot of psychologists and physicians in the world. The WHO and UN classify it as a mental disorder in the US, however, it is /not/ globally recognized as a mental disorder, and as I noted a /lot/ of psychologists and physicians recognize an actual biological difference in trans-genders. (I think it's worth noting that the US is hesitant to adopt WHO/UN's ICD global mental health classifications, because we mostly use such disorder findings for government/political/financial use and we apparently disagree with a lot of WHO/UN ICD findings.)

From Wikipedia because it has a decent overview of tests that have been done with GID: (GID is Gender Identity Disorder is the American label vs the "non-Americanized" label Gender Dysphoria)

"Twin studies indicate that GID is 62% heritable, evidencing the genetic influence or prenatal development as its origin.[22] In male-to-female transsexuals, GID is associated with variations in an individual's genes that make the individual less sensitive to androgens.[1] Zhou et al. (1995) found that in one area of the brain, male-to-female transsexuals have a typically female structure, and female-to-male transsexuals have a typically male structure.[23] Zhou et al. (1995) had a sample size of only six male-to-female transgender individuals. There may, for example, be some non-transgender heterosexual men with some brain structures that would be expected in a female, as the sample size in Zhou et al. (1995) is too small to exclude such possibilities. In addition, some aspects of trans women's hypothalamus functioning resemble that typical of cisgender women.[24]

The presence of typically female patterns of white matter and neuron patterns has also been observed in the brains of male-to-female transsexuals[25][26] and overall longer instances of the androgen receptor gene.[27] (Also see Causes of transsexualism.) However, these markers do not identify every individual who undergoes transition.[28]

Similar brain structure differences have, however, been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women.[29][30] More recent studies have found that circumstance and repeated activities such as meditation modify brain structures in a process called brain plasticity or neuroplasticity. In May 2014, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that for fathers, parenting "rewires the male brain".[31]"

~ I do agree that it is generally accepted that ones lifestyle /can/ change the "wiring" of their brain (which is the basis for most North American classification and treatments of GID.)

So even if we ignore the debate regarding what /actually/ causes GID, basically for this debate I'll [reluctantly] accept that GID is a self-inflicted "rewiring" based on social pressure (which is basically the argument being made here.) Then the real question, my question, is if such rewiring is actually a negative or a positive. Wiki above has exampled males becoming fathers "rewiring" their brains, but another example of a positive rewire would be some genius' who are thought to have rewired their own brains. Some negative examples of personal brain "rewiring" would be OCD patients, I'd say /most/ addiction patients do via chemical means (which is essentially the cause of a male or female infant as well), and I'd argue that "criminals" on all non-survival related scales [and stealing food for one or ones families survival does not count at s a negative trait to me personally] also rewire their brains to some extent (lessening moral aversion's through personal justification and such.)



So which side of the positive/negative fence would GID/Gender Dysphoria fall, and why?

My answer, if I'm accepting that it's self-inflicted rewiring, is that the only real con of such is in dis-acceptance in society which is not universally considered a negative trait. It could be related, to almost any social disorder; a couple examples that fit well with the debate here are social anxiety which is non-self inflicted and considered "normal and necessary" for infants, but can develop into a "disorder" in adulthood (SAD) when it has clear negative effects on a persons life, and Asocility which is thought to be "self-inflicted" but yet not considered a negative trait as it is oft desired by numerous social/political/religious/specialized groups/movements.


Now, to the extent of treatments for a supposed self-inflicted GID what is/are the ultimate positives for the re-re-wiring of trans-genders?

My answer is that the only real positive would be IF it /was/ a self-inflicted rewiring, then it could be properly reasoned that re-re-wiring would resolve the patients feelings of mis-belonging in their own body. However, such re-wirings are /not/ universally successful and often cause more harm than good for the patient. In the past many attempts were made to modify the GID person's thoughts (i.e., mind control or "brain washing"), via hypnosis, aversion therapy, shock therapy, or drug therapy. But none of these methods ever proved effective and often did more damage and inflicted more trauma on the patient than anything else. Which actually would likely prove even /more/ true if it was indeed a self-inflicted rewiring, after all said patient decided to re-wire themselves for some reason, and doctors would be attempting to undo that, the patient would resist such unless the /underlying/ reason for their self-rewiring was now gone; "treatment" really doesn't makes sense because the personal has /already/ proven that they can self-rewire themselves, so if it was a /problem/ for them, then why didn't they re-re-wire themselves? It's almost circular because for such an argument to treat to be the best course, one would actually have to argue that the patient /didn't/ have a choice in the original rewiring (like happens with OCD,) which ultimately defeats the argument that they self-inflicted the rewiring being argued in this thread heh

 

[Papageorgio]

Gender disorder is not genetic, it is not heredity, it is a mental issue and until they come to terms with their mental illness then it will continue to grow. Personally you can call them what you want, it won't change anything. They are who they are. Their interpretation is based on a mental issues not reality.

 

[EverCurious]

Nice "depth" of commentary there Papageorgio... On /what/ do you base your diagnosis of "mental illness" though?

Even if we /presume/ that it is a self-inflicted brain rewiring, there is no major /negative/ personal impact, which is what /defines/ a mental illness. "According to DSM-IV a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual

By that definition, in order to diagnose a mental illness that requires "mental treatment" of some kind, then we must find something "wrong" in the biopsychoscocial makeup of the individual, and it needs to be something that a) equates at least to the same level as a body dysmorphic disorder of some kind and b) is /harmful/ to the individual. In that assessment, and even presuming for the sake of argument that the transgender is self-inflicted rewiring of the brain, the only /con/ (I can think of) in being transgender would be exposing oneself to social discrimination, which could be argued as harmful to oneself. However, on the flip side, /if/ we are going to assess social discrimination as harmful, then we must also say that it is to others, and /admit/ that such discrimination is /harmful/ to others and thus we, as a society, should at least attempt to eliminate the practice of the social discrimination of trans-genders (which is pretty much why we ended up with PA laws in the first place, right?)

 

[ChrisL]

Nice "depth" of commentary there Papageorgio... On /what/ do you base your diagnosis of "mental illness" though?

Even if we /presume/ that it is a self-inflicted brain rewiring, there is no major /negative/ personal impact, which is what /defines/ a mental illness. "According to DSM-IV a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual

By that definition, in order to diagnose a mental illness that requires "mental treatment" of some kind, then we must find something "wrong" in the biopsychoscocial makeup of the individual, and it needs to be something that a) equates at least to the same level as a body dysmorphic disorder of some kind and b) is /harmful/ to the individual. In that assessment, and even presuming for the sake of argument that the transgender is self-inflicted rewiring of the brain, the only /con/ (I can think of) in being transgender would be exposing oneself to social discrimination, which could be argued as harmful to oneself. However, on the flip side, /if/ we are going to assess social discrimination as harmful, then we must also say that it is to others, and /admit/ that such discrimination is /harmful/ to others and thus we, as a society, should at least attempt to eliminate the practice of the social discrimination of trans-genders (which is pretty much why we ended up with PA laws in the first place, right?)

True, and your posts make some good sense. I wouldn't discriminate against these people. I just do not believe they are the opposite gender from what they were born. I don't know if it is a mental illness or not. I think the important thing is that they need to accept who and what they are. I never understood the driving force for them to dress like a woman or a man. Why is the clothing so important? Why is the image they project to others so important? If gender is "fluid" as you would like us to believe, then why do they get breast implants and have "bottom" surgery? On the one hand, they tell us being male or female is not important but how you feel is what important. On the other hand, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries, hormones, clothing, and make-up to make themselves appear as women. What gives?

 

[Papageorgio]

Nice "depth" of commentary there Papageorgio... On /what/ do you base your diagnosis of "mental illness" though?

Even if we /presume/ that it is a self-inflicted brain rewiring, there is no major /negative/ personal impact, which is what /defines/ a mental illness. "According to DSM-IV a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual

By that definition, in order to diagnose a mental illness that requires "mental treatment" of some kind, then we must find something "wrong" in the biopsychoscocial makeup of the individual, and it needs to be something that a) equates at least to the same level as a body dysmorphic disorder of some kind and b) is /harmful/ to the individual. In that assessment, and even presuming for the sake of argument that the transgender is self-inflicted rewiring of the brain, the only /con/ (I can think of) in being transgender would be exposing oneself to social discrimination, which could be argued as harmful to oneself. However, on the flip side, /if/ we are going to assess social discrimination as harmful, then we must also say that it is to others, and /admit/ that such discrimination is /harmful/ to others and thus we, as a society, should at least attempt to eliminate the practice of the social discrimination of trans-genders (which is pretty much why we ended up with PA laws in the first place, right?)

Spent many hours researching the issue in many medical books over the last 20 plus years. Nothing links it to genetics, it is a disorder. It happens in the brain, it is like other disorders and illnesses of the brain.

I said nothing about discrimination. they need help. I feel sorry for them.

 

[EverCurious]

Nice "depth" of commentary there Papageorgio... On /what/ do you base your diagnosis of "mental illness" though?

Even if we /presume/ that it is a self-inflicted brain rewiring, there is no major /negative/ personal impact, which is what /defines/ a mental illness. "According to DSM-IV a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual

By that definition, in order to diagnose a mental illness that requires "mental treatment" of some kind, then we must find something "wrong" in the biopsychoscocial makeup of the individual, and it needs to be something that a) equates at least to the same level as a body dysmorphic disorder of some kind and b) is /harmful/ to the individual. In that assessment, and even presuming for the sake of argument that the transgender is self-inflicted rewiring of the brain, the only /con/ (I can think of) in being transgender would be exposing oneself to social discrimination, which could be argued as harmful to oneself. However, on the flip side, /if/ we are going to assess social discrimination as harmful, then we must also say that it is to others, and /admit/ that such discrimination is /harmful/ to others and thus we, as a society, should at least attempt to eliminate the practice of the social discrimination of trans-genders (which is pretty much why we ended up with PA laws in the first place, right?)

True, and your posts make some good sense. I wouldn't discriminate against these people. I just do not believe they are the opposite gender from what they were born. I don't know if it is a mental illness or not. I think the important thing is that they need to accept who and what they are. I never understood the driving force for them to dress like a woman or a man. Why is the clothing so important? Why is the image they project to others so important? If gender is "fluid" as you would like us to believe, then why do they get breast implants and have "bottom" surgery? On the one hand, they tell us being male or female is not important but how you feel is what important. On the other hand, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries, hormones, clothing, and make-up to make themselves appear as women. What gives?

Well a lot of it has to do with the "how others treat you" part (for me.) If I had been looked at as a man, then I would not have been pressured at a young age to get married and have kids, I wouldn't have been frowned at for choosing slacks when I was told to "dress up," I wouldn't have been called a "tomboy" because it would have been "normal" for a boy, I wouldn't have been expected to take "home economics" and learn/know how to cook (I burn water... not joking), I wouldn't have been basically /forced/ into a role I did not want to be in.

My social life would have been... more normal instead of being the only "girl" at the nerd parties, the only "girl" programmer, the only "girl" gamer, the only "girl" watching sci-fi - Understand that I don't do that stuff for "attention" (to be frank I only barely "want" the attention of people whom I've grown to respect,) yet it was /constantly/ a thing with /everyone/, hell even /today/ when I game the boys can't get over the fact that I'm a girl.

And that's just the /personal relations/ side...

I would not have been "sexualized" at like 70% of the jobs I've had (hell one of my first bosses went to jail for it,) I very likely would not have had as many intra-office "cat fights" with women. If I wasn't a girl then there wouldn't have been the odd stigma of being a girl in the cut-throat corporate world; a mix of the bosses, owners, and managers girl troubles, misunderstandings/beliefs/assumptions about PMS, and this fucked up idea that /all/ women are less intelligent, less capable, less "strong," less reliable. I was even passed up on promotions because "your bio-logical clock has to be ringing" and I'm like my kids are in middle school.

There's also the stay-at-home-mom thing, (I believe it is the absolute best for kids, and I do not regret giving up my career "momentum" to raise my kidos one bit, so don't read me wrong here,) but there was a strong presumption, almost a requirement, that /I/ would be the one staying home even though I made more than my husband, even though he was in a kinda dead end job while I was clawing my way up the corporate ladder. It wasn't even just my husband either, it was /everyone/ in the family, there was never even the concept of any discussion which of us would be staying home from /any/ of them, and that's including my mother who had actually chosen to work instead of stay home.

Honestly, my entire career path would have been completely different, I would have joined the military; my original desire was to be an architect and/or engineer but I "settled" with accounting because of the employment market where I live. If I'd joined the military then I wouldn't be as tied to this state. Given my intelligence I would probably have ended up in a more scientifically aligned path, like space engineering or rocket science. I would have loved engineering, my first career choice was architecture, with structural engineering a close second. I often think that because I was tied to my state by the auto-assumption of settling down and having kids "sooner" and being near the grandparents when I did so, I gave up on all of that because it's not up here, and I settled for Accounting, which I do enjoy so it wasn't "bad" and ultimately it did get me into my present (though mostly retired) career position.

 

[ChrisL]

Nice "depth" of commentary there Papageorgio... On /what/ do you base your diagnosis of "mental illness" though?

Even if we /presume/ that it is a self-inflicted brain rewiring, there is no major /negative/ personal impact, which is what /defines/ a mental illness. "According to DSM-IV a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual

By that definition, in order to diagnose a mental illness that requires "mental treatment" of some kind, then we must find something "wrong" in the biopsychoscocial makeup of the individual, and it needs to be something that a) equates at least to the same level as a body dysmorphic disorder of some kind and b) is /harmful/ to the individual. In that assessment, and even presuming for the sake of argument that the transgender is self-inflicted rewiring of the brain, the only /con/ (I can think of) in being transgender would be exposing oneself to social discrimination, which could be argued as harmful to oneself. However, on the flip side, /if/ we are going to assess social discrimination as harmful, then we must also say that it is to others, and /admit/ that such discrimination is /harmful/ to others and thus we, as a society, should at least attempt to eliminate the practice of the social discrimination of trans-genders (which is pretty much why we ended up with PA laws in the first place, right?)

True, and your posts make some good sense. I wouldn't discriminate against these people. I just do not believe they are the opposite gender from what they were born. I don't know if it is a mental illness or not. I think the important thing is that they need to accept who and what they are. I never understood the driving force for them to dress like a woman or a man. Why is the clothing so important? Why is the image they project to others so important? If gender is "fluid" as you would like us to believe, then why do they get breast implants and have "bottom" surgery? On the one hand, they tell us being male or female is not important but how you feel is what important. On the other hand, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgeries, hormones, clothing, and make-up to make themselves appear as women. What gives?

Well a lot of it has to do with the "how others treat you" part (for me.) If I had been looked at as a man, then I would not have been pressured at a young age to get married and have kids, I wouldn't have been frowned at for choosing slacks when I was told to "dress up," I wouldn't have been called a "tomboy" because it would have been "normal" for a boy, I wouldn't have been expected to take "home economics" and learn/know how to cook (I burn water... not joking), I wouldn't have been basically /forced/ into a role I did not want to be in.

My social life would have been... more normal instead of being the only "girl" at the nerd parties, the only "girl" programmer, the only "girl" gamer, the only "girl" watching sci-fi - Understand that I don't do that stuff for "attention" (to be frank I only barely "want" the attention of people whom I've grown to respect,) yet it was /constantly/ a thing with /everyone/, hell even /today/ when I game the boys can't get over the fact that I'm a girl.

And that's just the /personal relations/ side...

I would not have been "sexualized" at like 70% of the jobs I've had (hell one of my first bosses went to jail for it,) I very likely would not have had as many intra-office "cat fights" with women. If I wasn't a girl then there wouldn't have been the odd stigma of being a girl in the cut-throat corporate world; a mix of the bosses, owners, and managers girl troubles, misunderstandings/beliefs/assumptions about PMS, and this fucked up idea that /all/ women are less intelligent, less capable, less "strong," less reliable. I was even passed up on promotions because "your bio-logical clock has to be ringing" and I'm like my kids are in middle school.

There's also the stay-at-home-mom thing, (I believe it is the absolute best for kids, and I do not regret giving up my career "momentum" to raise my kidos one bit, so don't read me wrong here,) but there was a strong presumption, almost a requirement, that /I/ would be the one staying home even though I made more than my husband, even though he was in a kinda dead end job while I was clawing my way up the corporate ladder. It wasn't even just my husband either, it was /everyone/ in the family, there was never even the concept of any discussion which of us would be staying home from /any/ of them, and that's including my mother who had actually chosen to work instead of stay home.

Honestly, my entire career path would have been completely different, I would have joined the military; my original desire was to be an architect and/or engineer but I "settled" with accounting because of the employment market where I live. If I'd joined the military then I wouldn't be as tied to this state. Given my intelligence I would probably have ended up in a more scientifically aligned path, like space engineering or rocket science. I would have loved engineering, my first career choice was architecture, with structural engineering a close second. I often think that because I was tied to my state by the auto-assumption of settling down and having kids "sooner" and being near the grandparents when I did so, I gave up on all of that because it's not up here, and I settled for Accounting, which I do enjoy so it wasn't "bad" and ultimately it did get me into my present (though mostly retired) career position.

I don't know how old are you or what it was like where you grew up, but it was never a problem for women to wear pants when and where I've grown up. I think things in that regard and as far as employment opportunities, things have changed a LOT in the past few decades. Women are doing all kinds of things that they wouldn't have been "allowed" to do in the past, and so are men. For instance, we see a lot more male nurses than in the past, which was a job reserved for mostly females. Also flight attendants.

I still don't see the need for a man to go out and get surgery, and a potentially dangerous one at that, to give himself the outwards appearances that he is a "woman," especially if he is still attracted to women. Is this some kind of strange obsession with woman perhaps? How would he even know what it "feels like" to be a woman? Would half as many be getting this surgery if having PMS and menstruation for the next 30 or 40 years was a stipulation? If "gender" is just a label by society, why do these men think it is a life or death situation that they must give off the outward appearance to others that they are "females?" Why not just be in touch with your "feminine side" so to speak? I'm sorry, but I see this stuff as nothing but unhealthy, being unable to accept who and what you actually are in reality.

 

[ChrisL]

How about working on being a caring and loving PERSON? How about that. I have to say that a lot of times, I'm not "feeling" female or male. I feel like a "person" most of the time. You know what I mean?

 

[EverCurious]

Well I'm 40 and I grew up in one of the first states to ban same sex marriage so there's that. I agree things have changed in the work place for women, if it hadn't then there is no way I would have clawed my way to the top of the corporate ladder. But, as someone at the top, sorry to tell you but a lot of the same female stigma is still there, and if I'm being totally honest, I do it myself. Either way though, it doesn't change the /social/ aspects, which is a lot of it too.

On your second paragraph questions;
They want surgery to match their body to what they feel they are, also see my above on the 'social aspects' and how /others/ perceive and treat them, and finally, gender identity and sexual orientation are a) not the same thing and b) separate from each other. A sex change operation does not change what a trans finds attractive, it only changes their physical body. In my case, even if I got a sex change operation to become a man, I would still find men sexually attractive. Any surgery is "risky," hell you can bleed out from a root canal, every time you have any kind of sedation someone is supposed to watch you over night so you don't die in your sleep. You have to look at the likelihood of surgical death/complications for gender operations; which according to the only research I can find on that subject (from Japan Complications reported in 15 of sex change operation patients The Japan Times ) 70% of gender reassignment patients are satisfied with the results and 15% reported "serious" complications like such as urination problems and intestinal blockage, or the necessity of additional surgeries. Plus that study found that only "a little over 10%" of the surgeries were performed at "well equipped" hospitals which followed Japan's guidelines for the procedure. And of course complication rates vary between hospitals and doctors.

No.

Because it's about the social aspects and how they are perceived by others, and you've forgotten that they already "feel" like a woman.

Uhm... I can't actually answer that one, it'd be an individual thing I think. I hate it personally, such a pain in the ass (I had my tubes tied like 16 years ago, still waiting on menopause.)

Tran's folk don't think it is a life and death situation, the Christian's do. Without them fighting it, there wouldn't be as heavy a stigma on being trans nor homosexual and you wouldn't even be hearing about this stuff - it wouldn't be news, it'd be the same as some chick getting plastic surgery. Being homosexual would more likely be akin to preferring blonds to brunettes. And very likely we would have dropped the gender roles assumption thing /long/ before now. Religion is a strong motivator when it comes to "how it's supposed to be."

Being in touch with your "feminine side" as a male in America? Yeah... You might as well put a sticker on your forehead saying "kick my ass"... (at least in HS though like age 21) After that you're likely to be seen as weak, unconfident, non-reliable, etc. for higher-end jobs.

And again, you're missing the point, trans folks believe and feel, that they /actually/ are the wrong sex so arguing that they need to learn to "love themselves" is /exactly/ what they are /trying/ to do. It doesn't matter what you or anyone /else/ thinks, what matters is how /they/ feel and think and, for some of them, they feel that a sex change operation will resolve their gender identity issues. It could be debated on if it /actually/ does help them with their gender identity or not, sure, but that is not a good enough reason to deny their decision to even try to do so, much less to proclaim them "mentally ill." It's like if you have a wart that makes you self-conscious, no one else really gets a choice on if you have it surgically removed. I understand it can be hard to think of a penis as a wart, but that really is kind of the mindset of a transM2F. You are basically arguing that they want to "disfigure" themselves with surgery, but they feel like they are already disfigured and want to correct it.

I'm kind of "lucky" in that respect, I mean I identify as male, but at the same time I'm alright with being a woman; that's part of my /individual/ personality though, I not only lack a "social motivator trigger," basically I don't seek nor need social acceptance which I think that is what makes it less of a "problem" for me to skip the sex change operation, but I also lack idk "deeper" emotions, like I don't get seriously tore up over stuff, I'm able to balance my emotions with logic and... fortitude I guess. I seriously considered surgery when I was younger, but I fell in love with my first husband and that kind of set my mind/path to not get surgery. If I hadn't met him I probably would have, and I'll admit I'd probably have regretted it because I now realize that there is no way I could have dealt with woman on a ~cough~ meaningful level. Not only could I not handle being in a stable relationship with a woman, I also couldn't give a woman what she wanted, nor frankly deserved. My other option would have been being a trans homosexual, but frankly I'm not into anal, yet I have a healthy sex drive, so that wouldn't have worked out well for me. I am glad that I didn't get an operation and I'm extremely happy that I do not suffer from the issues that a lot of GID's do.

 

[Zoom-boing]

EverCurious ... please explain what you mean by "I identify as a male". Thx.