Chastity Bono undergoing sex change

[Birdzeye]

The daughter of Cher and the late Sony Bono has begun the sex-change process to become a man, report news sources.

Bono, who will go by the name Chaz Bono as a man, had come out as gay 20 years ago.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/06/chastity-bono-undergoing-sex-change.html

I have to admit to having a hard time with this. I simply can't relate to the desire to take sex hormones and undergo surgery to become a member of the opposite gender.

[Michael]

The daughter of Cher and the late Sony Bono has begun the sex-change process to become a man, report news sources.

Bono, who will go by the name Chaz Bono as a man, had come out as gay 20 years ago.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/06/chastity-bono-undergoing-sex-change.html

I have to admit to having a hard time with this. I simply can't relate to the desire to take sex hormones and undergo surgery to become a member of the opposite gender.
I certainly don't understand it, but it's none of my business so I don't really have to try.

What does strike me as odd is that the 'result' would be massively more artificial than the 'present gender' is mentally believed to be (and will require never-ending medication to preserve the artificial state) thus one becomes a permanent medical patient.

Besides which, as a matter of physics, I should think it would be MUCH easier to turn a man into a woman (i.e. remove certain bits) than to turn a woman into a man (i.e. create/add extra bits). But this is just my speculations. I'm certainly not asking for anyone to pound this thread with photographs of the procedure! If I'm wrong here, I'm blissful in my ignorance.

[Birdzeye]

Oh, my! I hope that doesn't happen!

I was pondering my own reaction to this story. In the discussions of gays, I'm usually the one who argues that gays don't "choose" to be gay, just as I never chose to be hetrosexual.

However, the whole idea of switching from referring to someone as "she" to "he" (or vice versa) leaves me feeling uncomfortable. And I still don't understand what drives people to desire this kind of change. I just know that it happens.

[The Drunk Girl]

I'm curious as to why "Chaz" waited so long to have the operation done. :ummm:

[Sucre]

The daughter of Cher and the late Sony Bono has begun the sex-change process to become a man, report news sources.

Bono, who will go by the name Chaz Bono as a man, had come out as gay 20 years ago.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/06/chastity-bono-undergoing-sex-change.html

I have to admit to having a hard time with this. I simply can't relate to the desire to take sex hormones and undergo surgery to become a member of the opposite gender.
People have all kind of strange ideas and if the means are there to put them in practice, they will just do it. Changing sex is just going a little bit further it seems to me than having a new nose. (Imagine yourself in the morning with a totally new face, wouldn't it be odd ?) What about all the surgery Michael Jackson went through ?

What is striking here is that it is the daughter of Cher who belongs to the most "beauty-surged" women in the world. It is like the daughter is saying to her mother : "Look Mom, I can do even better than you !"

[Michael]

I was pondering my own reaction to this story. In the discussions of gays, I'm usually the one who argues that gays don't "choose" to be gay, just as I never chose to be hetrosexual.

Yes, this is a very good point - albeit a troublesome one!

The whole idea of some people seeking to have a sex change operation to 'correct' the physiological 'error' of their birth-gender, does seem to impinge upon the traditionally common gay argument that one is 'born gay' (biologically speaking) and that's that.

The argument of sexual reassignment surgery asserts that biology makes 'errors'. Ergo, being 'born gay' may be just another 'error' that ought to be corrected with surgery.

Personally, I think the gay movement is foolish to invest so much intellectual capital into the issue of holding 'born gay' as dogma since it is inherently a problematic assertion (for biological, philosophical and political reasons).

[The Drunk Girl]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2835184&page=1

Found this article about a 12 year undergoing a sex change.

[Michael]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2835184&page=1

Yikes! :eek:

It is one thing for adults to do this, but a 12 year old?

[The Drunk Girl]

Yikes! :eek:

It is one thing for adults to do this, but a 12 year old?

Yes, I know. My thoughts exactly. Article said the child started the process two years ago so technically this is a 10 year old who started having this done. I'm surprised the child's parents went along with all of it as well.

This topic has intrigued me entirely. It truly is interesting (oddly enough). I have been researching more about the reconstructive surgery than anything. Although, I have no desire to undergo such a procedure I have to admit it is amazing/strange where science has taken us in this direction.

[Americano]

Chaz is beastly looking regardless of gender.

[Michael]

Yes, I know. My thoughts exactly. Article said the child started the process two years ago so technically this is a 10 year old who started having this done. I'm surprised the child's parents went along with all of it as well.

This topic has intrigued me entirely. It truly is interesting (oddly enough). I have been researching more about the reconstructive surgery than anything. Although, I have no desire to undergo such a procedure I have to admit it is amazing/strange where science has taken us in this direction.
I believe the article stated 14 is the present age and the treatments started two years ago at age 12.

And please, spare us the picture posting from your researches!!!! :eek:

[Michael]

What is striking here is that it is the daughter of Cher who belongs to the most "beauty-surged" women in the world. It is like the daughter is saying to her mother : "Look Mom, I can do even better than you !"
:eek:

I hope you are not correct here, but I suppose it does seem quite possible that this might be part of it.

[The Drunk Girl]

Chaz is beastly looking regardless of gender.
:clap:

[The Drunk Girl]

I believe the article stated 14 is the present age and the treatments started two years ago at age 12.

And please, spare us the picture posting from your researches!!!! :eek:

Whoops. I did read it wrong.

And don't worry I'm not going to post any pictures on here. I scrolled past those pretty fast myself and just read around them;)

[dilettante]

The whole idea of sex-change makes me uncomfortable, and not just in an "icky" sense (though there is certainly that as well).

It seems like the ultimate triumph of the notion that sex (what is male/female) and gender (what is masculine/feminine) are objectively fixed, when it reality the two are only loosely related. The former is entirely physical and fixed by biology whereas the latter is predominantly psychological and constructed by culture.

[Lance]

Isn\'t this no more than taking fagotry to it\'s logical conclusion?

[Birdzeye]

The whole idea of sex-change makes me uncomfortable, and not just in an "icky" sense (though there is certainly that as well).

It seems like the ultimate triumph of the notion that sex (what is male/female) and gender (what is masculine/feminine) are objectively fixed, when it reality the two are only loosely related. The former is entirely physical and fixed by biology whereas the latter is predominantly psychological and constructed by culture.

Interesting comment. I think many people do tend to consider "sex" and "gender" as "the same." Our culture has falsely attributed certain nonsexual traits to "sex" or "gender." Examples that come to mind would be leadership (considered male) and nurtrurance (considered female).

I tend to believe that we are made how we are made, certain height, eye color, physical build - and sex. I guess there must be times when the sex of an individual isn't as clear cut as it has been for me.

[Sucre]

The whole idea of sex-change makes me uncomfortable, and not just in an "icky" sense (though there is certainly that as well).

It seems like the ultimate triumph of the notion that sex (what is male/female) and gender (what is masculine/feminine) are objectively fixed, when it reality the two are only loosely related. The former is entirely physical and fixed by biology whereas the latter is predominantly psychological and constructed by culture.
"You are not born a woman, you become one ..."

Your comment is very interresting and could be the start of a long discussion on the relation between culture and biology.

The underlying psychology troubles me. If I am a woman and feels like a man, what hinders me in our present society to live like a man too ? What is it like exactly to live like a man ? What makes that you are a man ? Drink beer, smoke, drive cars, sleep with women ? Besides can you fix your soul because you fix your body ? I bet that Chaze, once she has become a he, will long for the time when he was a woman ...

[Michael]

Isn\'t this no more than taking fagotry to it\'s logical conclusion?
Only if you insist that the conclusion MUST be heterosexual and that the outward physical appearances of heterosexuality are the most important thing to be considered.

If so, then sex-change operations do make perfect sense.

[The Drunk Girl]

"You are not born a woman, you become one ..."

Your comment is very interresting and could be the start of a long discussion on the relation between culture and biology.

The underlying psychology troubles me. If I am a woman and feels like a man, what hinders me in our present society to live like a man too ? What is it like exactly to live like a man ? What makes that you are a man ? Drink beer, smoke, drive cars, sleep with women ? Besides can you fix your soul because you fix your body ? I bet that Chaze, once she has become a he, will long for the time when he was a woman ...

A woman can still drink beer, smoke, drive cars, and sleep with women just as a man can cook, clean, and sleep with men. Society has these certain ideas of what the "typical" gender roles should be, but fortunately (unfortunately) over time this has changed. I think it is easier for everyone to say that this is what a woman should do and be and vice versa regarding men. But the world really doesn't fit the "mold" we have. Look at how much the world has changed over the past 50-60 years compared to now and the roles each gender played...

Also the question of what makes you a man/woman is quite similar to the question "what is freedom?" There's no true definite answer...well other than the anatomy part:)

[Americano]

A woman can still drink beer, smoke, drive cars, and sleep with women just as a man can cook, clean, and sleep with men. Society has these certain ideas of what the "typical" gender roles should be, but fortunately (unfortunately) over time this has changed. I think it is easier for everyone to say that this is what a woman should do and be and vice versa regarding men. But the world really doesn't fit the "mold" we have. Look at how much the world has changed over the past 50-60 years compared to now and the roles each gender played...

Also the question of what makes you a man/woman is quite similar to the question "what is freedom?" There's no true definite answer...well other than the anatomy part:)

There's a consistent +/- 30% of the US citizenry that given the power would revert the US back to about 1830 when the white man/woman was supposedly only heterosexual, women had zero rights and cotton produced by slaves was king.

[The Drunk Girl]

There's a consistent +/- 30% of the US citizenry that given the power would revert the US back to about 1830 when the white man/woman was supposedly only heterosexual, women had zero rights and cotton produced by slaves was king.

True, but I do not believe either one of us can see that ever happening again. Gay rights, women's rights, and black rights, etc have ALL come too far (not saying there still aren't some problems).

[Americano]

True, but I do not believe either one of us can see that ever happening again. Gay rights, women's rights, and black rights, etc have ALL come too far (not saying there still aren't some problems).

Unless parts of the bible belt have undergone attitude changes I missed such as the KKK still recruiting, the religious right remaining committed to stamping out a woman's right to abortion to the point of murder, many southerners still reeking of racial discrimination and a gay person being a pejorative faggot there are still a lot of major remaining social problems.

[dilettante]

There's a consistent +/- 30% of the US citizenry that given the power would revert the US back to about 1830 when the white man/woman was supposedly only heterosexual, women had zero rights and cotton produced by slaves was king.

I think that figure is a gross hyperbole if you're going to insert slavery in there. I know a lot of (semi-)racists, but none of them would re-establish slavery.

[Donkey]

I guess I just don't see what is so confusing about changing sexes.

There are three variables at hand that should not be confused: sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Most of the world's population has a sex that matches their gender and are oriented toward the opposite sex. Some have sex that matches their gender and are oriented toward that same sex. Some, though, are of one sex, another gender, and then their orientation is toward one of the two sexes. While the first two can live just fine (barring anti-gay discrimination), the third exist in a constant gender-sex crisis. I guess it is simpler to fix the sexual hardware to match the gender than vice versa.

It is only related to homosexuality in that it is different from the norm and that people who's are a different gender than they are sex are often also oriented toward the same sex. Homosexuality has to do with sexual orientation, transgender has to do with an inherent conflict between the sex and gender.

[Margot]

I guess I just don't see what is so confusing about changing sexes.

There are three variables at hand that should not be confused: sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Most of the world's population has a sex that matches their gender and are oriented toward the opposite sex. Some have sex that matches their gender and are oriented toward that same sex. Some, though, are of one sex, another gender, and then their orientation is toward one of the two sexes. While the first two can live just fine (barring anti-gay discrimination), the third exist in a constant gender-sex crisis. I guess it is simpler to fix the sexual hardware to match the gender than vice versa.

It is only related to homosexuality in that it is different from the norm and that people who's are a different gender than they are sex are often also oriented toward the same sex. Homosexuality has to do with sexual orientation, transgender has to do with an inherent conflict between the sex and gender.


That's exactly what I was thinking.

At my school we have three genders listed and valid on any and all school forms: Male, Female, and Transgender.

Makes sense to me.

[Dominick]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

At my school we have three genders listed and valid on any and all school forms: Male, Female, and Transgender.

Makes sense to me.
Sexists !
'Both' and 'None' are also possible.

[partofme]

Sexists !
'Both' and 'None' are also possible.


I read an article a while back about a very small portion of the population that has no attraction to anybody male or female and consider them selves asexual. I believe my wife may be one of them actually.

[Sucre]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

At my school we have three genders listed and valid on any and all school forms: Male, Female, and Transgender.

Makes sense to me.
No, it does not make sense. Transgender is just "trans", something between sexes, but none of them. Basically, no sex.

As I see it, listing a "third" gender at your school is just a way to make different sexual orientations (or let say minority sexual orientations) politically correct and socially acceptable.

A bit like Gay marriage if you ask me. Why is it so that most Gays abosultely want to get married when most heterosexual couples insist that marriage as an institution should be abolished ?

[Sucre]

I read an article a while back about a very small portion of the population that has no attraction to anybody male or female and consider them selves asexual. I believe my wife may be one of them actually.
Yes, I read the same - After Freud, the sexual liberation of the 1960s, the sexual experimentation of the 1970s, the growing gay rights movements in the 1980s and 1990s, comes now the time to discover that, actually, part of the population has no sex or does not even wish to have sex !!! Asexuality is the next fashionable area of research.

(Your wife is probably only in a transition phase ;) :) - not the place to talk about this here - ), but I know for sure amongst my friends a couple of guys who never had a girl friend in their life and who say that sex is secondary, quite unusual for men : I've always thought that they were either repressed homosexuals or, indeed, a-sexual. Why not ?

[Dominick]

I was actually referring to people that have either no physical gender attributes or have those of both sexes. The more oestrogen and testosterone we pump into the environment, the more of those there will be. For many species, mostly some fish and amphibians, this is already a big issue today. If the level gets high enough, it may well be we'll be forced to drop the male/female dichotomy altogether.

[Michael]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

At my school we have three genders listed and valid on any and all school forms: Male, Female, and Transgender.

Makes sense to me.
Homosexuals are in reality considered to represent only the tiniest fraction (1-2%) of the population. Transgenders are a micro-fraction of that number.

In other words, for many schools smaller than perhaps 1000 students, statistically speaking, they are quite unlikely to encounter a single transgendered person.

[The Drunk Girl]

Unless parts of the bible belt have undergone attitude changes I missed such as the KKK still recruiting, the religious right remaining committed to stamping out a woman's right to abortion to the point of murder, many southerners still reeking of racial discrimination and a gay person being a pejorative faggot there are still a lot of major remaining social problems.

Yes those are problems that do exist, but with all of your examples there are positives that go along. Black people have jobs/careers, are in interracial relationships, they can go to public schools, and be president;). Women can have (most) jobs that men have, we have become breadwinners in some marriages, and abortions still happen everyday. The gay community can adopt children and in some states and other parts of the world they can be married.

These are large milestones in every community and each prove how much society has grown. There will always be problems no matter what, but that is just a part of life. I would like to think that we all can see the positive steps that have been made and continue to grow on them. Those in the world like the religious fanatics and the racist assholes are living in a time that is the past not the present.

[Margot]

Homosexuals are in reality considered to represent only the tiniest fraction (1-2%) of the population. Transgenders are a micro-fraction of that number.

In other words, for many schools smaller than perhaps 1000 students, statistically speaking, they are quite unlikely to encounter a single transgendered person.

Does that make them any less real? I don't really understand your point.

I mean, with Chastity Bono here we've actually got a transgender person-- the only necessary criteria for classifying her as such is that she feels that way.

However tiny their representation may be they do exist.

[Donkey]

Honestly this conversation is eerily similar to a right wing discussion of homosexuality. It's weird, we can't relate, it's rare, even going so far as to suggest the individual is just trying to one-up her glam-pop mama.

To me it is pretty simple: there is a biological disconnect between body and mind that leads to a crisis of identity. It's like being in a group of strangers and feeling unwelcome, unwanted and illfitting, except that group of strangers is your body.

There will always be a sexual fringe I guess. Maybe it's a generational thing.

[dilettante]

To me it is pretty simple: there is a biological disconnect between body and mind that leads to a crisis of identity. It's like being in a group of strangers and feeling unwelcome, unwanted and illfitting, except that group of strangers is your body.


But isn't the "disconnect" social/cultural rather than biological?

I mean, let's say individual-believes/society-teaches "People with body-part X feel and act in manner A". Thus, an individual with body-part X who would doesn't feel or want to act in manner A would feel that there was a disconnect, but it isn't that their feelings are somehow inherently at odds with their physical biology, its merely that their particular combination clashes with the socio-cultural norm. After all, in another culture (or simply a couple centuries ago) the norm might have been "People with body-part X feel and act in manner B."
I just think its important to remember that, to a large extent, the connection between physical body parts and norms of behavior is social, not biological. Men are masculine/Women are feminine more because they are taught to be than because of any biological link, and the definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" are constantly changing.

[Donkey]

But isn't the "disconnect" social/cultural rather than biological?

I mean, let's say individual-believes/society-teaches "People with body-part X feel and act in manner A". Thus, an individual with body-part X who would doesn't feel or want to act in manner A would feel that there was a disconnect, but it isn't that their feelings are somehow inherently at odds with their physical biology, its merely that their particular combination clashes with the socio-cultural norm. After all, in another culture (or simply a couple centuries ago) the norm might have been "People with body-part X feel and act in manner B."
I just think its important to remember that, to a large extent, the connection between physical body parts and norms of behavior is social, not biological. Men are masculine/Women are feminine more because they are taught to be than because of any biological link, and the definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" are constantly changing.
I have no experience personally with being transgender, and am relatively ignorant on the subject, so I cannot speak with authority. However, I do believe that it goes beyond mere cultural norms. Someone who is willing to be openly transgender in today's hostile society would probably be equally willing to throw off cultural norms and behave as a person of an opposite sex (in fact, some do: transvestites). However, I believe in the case of transgender, there is, in fact, a biological disconnect. Not only are you an oddity in society, your gender and your sex are at odds. I think there is more to gender than whether you act "masculine" or "feminine."

[Sucre]

Honestly this conversation is eerily similar to a right wing discussion of homosexuality. It's weird, we can't relate, it's rare, even going so far as to suggest the individual is just trying to one-up her glam-pop mama.
Since I am the one who said that, I think it needs clarification.

Having gone through psychotherapy, one thing I learnt from the process is that whatever you do in life, there is a relation to something you have experienced. There is no accident. Your choices are not free. (Not even your political opinions are "free", but this would be the subject of another thread.)

In the case of Chaze, it works this way :
It needs a great amount of courage to decide to undergo surgery, any kind of surgery, a forteriori if it changes your body. However, surgery belongs to her world since, as said, her mother has done that all her life... Surgery is familiar to her, she will not be afraid. It worked for her mother, it will work for her. If on top of that she has a father who discovers later in life that he is actually gay, there is really little surprise that she has an identity crisis at the end !

(The competitive factor with the mother is simply that girls often try to top their mother : be more beautiful etc.)

I don't think my argument is "right wing". What I am interested in is the psychology, not the politics. The inconscious elements leading to the conscious decision presented in a rational way (for example : "disconnect between body and mind that leads to a crisis of identity").

The issue of homosexuality is very politicized in the US. Basically, it comes to a choice between the intolerance of a few religious groups and the tolerance of the liberals.

The fact that some school choose to add transsexual as a third gender, when it actually represents, as Michael pointed out, a micro-section of a tiny minority, further illustrates this. It is so ideological.

Beyond the politics though, and the ideology, there is a person in flesh and blood who makes a conscious decision. Chaze is a typical American phenomenon because she has been socialised in a certain way.

[Donkey]

Since I am the one who said that, I think it needs clarification.

Having gone through psychotherapy, one thing I learnt from the process is that whatever you do in life, there is a relation to something you have experienced. There is no accident. Your choices are not free. (Not even your political opinions are "free", but this would be the subject of another thread.)

In the case of Chaze, it works this way :
It needs a great amount of courage to decide to undergo surgery, any kind of surgery, a forteriori if it changes your body. However, surgery belongs to her world since, as said, her mother has done that all her life... Surgery is familiar to her, she will not be afraid. It worked for her mother, it will work for her. If on top of that she has a father who discovers later in life that he is actually gay, there is really little surprise that she has an identity crisis at the end !

(The competitive factor with the mother is simply that girls often try to top their mother : be more beautiful etc.)

I don't think my argument is "right wing". What I am interested in is the psychology, not the politics. The inconscious elements leading to the conscious decision presented in a rational way (for example : "disconnect between body and mind that leads to a crisis of identity").

The issue of homosexuality is very politicized in the US. Basically, it comes to a choice between the intolerance of a few religious groups and the tolerance of the liberals.

The fact that some school choose to add transsexual as a third gender, when it actually represents, as Michael pointed out, a micro-section of a tiny minority, further illustrates this. It is so ideological.

Beyond the politics though, and the ideology, there is a person in flesh and blood who makes a conscious decision. Chaze is a typical American phenomenon because she has been socialised in a certain way.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to imply that in you, or anyone else who posted for that matter, there lies the same sort of bigotry and hatred that you do see in anti-homosexual groups... there was just a similar tenor to the conversation.

But I don't think that observing that there is, in fact, a sex/gender fringe that is so far divorced from our "normalized" preconceptions is particularly ideological, unless it is the ideology of accepting reality as it is.

It's like saying that certain elements aren't really elements just because they are super rare, and that only stuff like carbon and nitrogen are REAL elements.

[Michael]

Does that make them any less real? I don't really understand your point.

I mean, with Chastity Bono here we've actually got a transgender person-- the only necessary criteria for classifying her as such is that she feels that way.

However tiny their representation may be they do exist.
So every minority, no matter how tiny that minority is, ought to be indulged with full and equal status to the majority all the time?

Lets just say that society routinely discriminates against all kinds of micro-small minorities. I don't think one can ever even hope to eliminate ALL such discriminations since they are such tiny percentages, many schools might go several years without ever encountering one. But should every school be required reprint all their forms and hire a sexual diversity counsellor and build third sets of washrooms and changerooms for this 'third' sex that is so rare? These are my tax dollars here (figuratively speaking).

And there is obviously a huge amount of ideology and politics (political correctness if you prefer) that decides which 'micro-minority' gets the special treatment and which ones get ignored (the vast majority).

That was my point about the micro-minorities. There are literally millions of them out there. If we are going to start indulging micro-minorities, there are lots and lots to choose from in a whole range of public issues. Picking one and ignoring the others strikes me as arbitrary and problematic.

[Margot]

So every minority, no matter how tiny that minority is, ought to be indulged with full and equal status to the majority all the time?

Lets just say that society routinely discriminates against all kinds of micro-small minorities. I don't think one can ever even hope to eliminate ALL such discriminations since they are such tiny percentages, many schools might go several years without ever encountering one. But should every school be required reprint all their forms and hire a sexual diversity counsellor and build third sets of washrooms and changerooms for this 'third' sex that is so rare? These are my tax dollars here (figuratively speaking).

And there is obviously a huge amount of ideology and politics (political correctness if you prefer) that decides which 'micro-minority' gets the special treatment and which ones get ignored (the vast majority).

That was my point about the micro-minorities. There are literally millions of them out there. If we are going to start indulging micro-minorities, there are lots and lots to choose from in a whole range of public issues. Picking one and ignoring the others strikes me as arbitrary and problematic.

What status should she/he not have?

I mean, if we're gonna get into the nitty gritty of it, why don't we just have one washroom for all sexes? That'd be cheaper, wouldn't it?

This is a biological thing. I mean, we allow albinos to tint their car windows to a degree that the rest of us aren't allowed. We create special ed classrooms for kids with learning disabilities. Hell, in my public school district here we have a special school for pregnant teens. Funded by my tax dollars.

For the record, transgender kids at my lovely little school (of ten thousand students) just choose which bathroom they are comfortable using. Doesn't affect me in the slightest, and we do have a couple of 'em representin' yo, down here.

[Margot]

No, it does not make sense. Transgender is just "trans", something between sexes, but none of them. Basically, no sex.

As I see it, listing a "third" gender at your school is just a way to make different sexual orientations (or let say minority sexual orientations) politically correct and socially acceptable.

A bit like Gay marriage if you ask me. Why is it so that most Gays abosultely want to get married when most heterosexual couples insist that marriage as an institution should be abolished ?

I have not met many heterosexual couples in stable, loving relationships who want to abolish marriage.

I've had some pretty terrible luck with boys in my lifetime, and every once in a while I'll see a pretty girl and think "ah, maybe that's the way to go!" only to remember that I don't want to deal with lampreys, I want to deal with sea-cucumbers (vaginas and penises, I know, I have fun with euphemisms). I can't change the fact (no matter how much easier it would make my life) that I like boys.

I can't really imagine how terrible it would feel to be a boy in this body. Or even to merely think of myself as a boy in this body. A boy who is restricted to being socially aggressive in the catty girl way simply because I have a vagina (I have a hard enough time with that anyway). I can't imagine feeling trapped by this-- but it does happen to other people.

If anything, it seems to me like Charity Bono is forking out her own money as a favor to us, to fit in and conform and be a boy in a boy body.

I don't see anything wrong with making different sexual orientations more socially acceptable. I mean, as long as no children or farm animals (or cats or dogs or budgies or whatever) are being hurt in the making of this pleasure-fest then what right do I have to complain? Whatever one does with his or her or it's genitalia really doesn't affect me.

[Sucre]

But I don't think that observing that there is, in fact, a sex/gender fringe that is so far divorced from our "normalized" preconceptions is particularly ideological, unless it is the ideology of accepting reality as it is.
Presented this way, it is not ideological, no.

However, an ideological argument could be that it is modern society which has perverted the human soul. Reality "as it is" is not acceptable or is here to be fixed.

It makes sense that a well ordered Society forbids homosexuality, since it aims at reproducing itself and reproduction can only occure with two sexes. The fact that homosexuality becomes socially acceptable is a direct product of western individualism.

[Margot]

Final note re: my crazy ass liberal school.

The entire student body is sent surveys about three times a year regarding how we feel our money should be spent. One of these surveys deals with the medical goodness the school is willing to offer. There's a lot to choose from on those fine forms, from male rape counseling to programs to help quit smoking to AA on campus and religious guidance groups (I totally voted nay on all of those things).

But there it is. Gender recognition is but a tiny fraction of what we've voted yes on.

[Sucre]

I have not met many heterosexual couples in stable, loving relationships who want to abolish marriage.
Well, maybe not in the USA, no. Marriage is very much still "in". Not so in Europe, believe me. France, for example, introduced the the PACS a few years ago - and the verb "pacser" was born / je me pacse, tu te pacses, Pierre et Jean se sont pacsés etc. . I do not know the details, but the idea behind was to enable people who live together (no matter how) to have the same rights as far as succession is concerned for example, or accession to real estate. A very pragmatic law. The people against the law, however, called it "marriage-light" at the time, arguing that it was making traditional marriage with it flury of legal and tax privileges, useless.

Indeed many young couples will "pacse" rather than get married.

Similarly, 30% children (quoting from the top of my hat!) are born within couples which are not married. It makes no difference what so ever since the father gets exactly the same rights as long as he recognises the child at his birth. I know such couples, long loving relationship with three to four children, and they are wise considering the divorce rate !

Marriage is more and more perceived as a social institution which says nothing on the quality of the relationship.

While this was happening in France, the Netherlands next door were introducing Gay marriage. Why ? To make it socially acceptable.


I don't see anything wrong with making different sexual orientations more socially acceptable. I mean, as long as no children or farm animals (or cats or dogs or budgies or whatever) are being hurt in the making of this pleasure-fest then what right do I have to complain? Whatever one does with his or her or it's genitalia really doesn't affect me.
There is nothing wrong except that ideology should not mix up with sexuality. Sexuality is individual. It belongs to the private sphere. I think that sexual orientation is none of "society"'s business -either way.

The school you go to, openly biased towards an ultra minuscule group, is for sure not run by a religious group or by Republicans ? Very honestly, however, it seems to me that it shows as much bigottry as a religious convent providing education to young girls only and teaching that there should be no sex before marriage.

The message is the opposite (sexual openess v. sexual restriction) but the spirit is the same.

[Michael]

What status should she/he not have?
I haven't stated that anyone should or shouldn't have anything.

I'm merely addressing the issue that was raised above about how people seem to be pretty darn arbitrary about which micro-minorities get official sanction and which ones get ignored. This seems interesting to me.

Secondly, the examples you give already show that the 'transgendered' have the one 'thing' that all minorities seem to fight tooth and nail to get - official recognition - which they translate as "validation by the Government". This is always the most important goal of minority activist groups (as it validates the activism as well).

Gay marriage is a classic example of this. The principle of legal same-sex marriage is VERY important to gays generally - because it represents official government validation of their status (and that is VERY important to a remarkable number of 'minorities').

Apparently gay men interested in actually having a 'gay marriage' are rather a tiny minority within the small gay minority (i.e. gay males outnumber lesbians by 3:1 in most surveys - but lesbian couples make up some two-thirds of all same-sex marriages (and probably 90% of same-sex divorces!). The two-thirds figure comes from Toronto's City Hall - I don't have a link for it. Btw, the same Toronto City Hall figures showed that 1/3 of all same sex marriages registered in Toronto are non-Canadians (ie. Americans).

Gay men support the right of gay marriage - but gay men generally aren't the slightest bit interested in exercising that right.

I mean, if we're gonna get into the nitty gritty of it, why don't we just have one washroom for all sexes? That'd be cheaper, wouldn't it?
Actually, the washroom example shows the real issue here. It is quite common for people to insist on the sanctity of principles only so long as the principles require other people to do something. As soon as the principle requires an inconvenience on their part, the principles tend to go out the window.

In other words, 'transgendered' is so massively important that it has to be categorized as a separate 'third sex' on all forms. But it isn't important enough to warrant separate washrooms which are (and always have been) separated by sex. If transgendered is truly a 'third sex' then it MUST have its own public washrooms. But that's inconvenient for the 'transgendered' so they skip that demand?

Seems like discrimination is always selective isn't it?


For the record, transgender kids at my lovely little school (of ten thousand students) just choose which bathroom they are comfortable using. Doesn't affect me in the slightest, and we do have a couple of 'em representin' yo, down here.
Transgendered kids? Are you kidding? :eek:

I don't think we're talking about children here. I was under the assumption that we are talking about legal adults here. All my comments on the topic are relevant to the assumption that we are talking about legal age adults. If it is transgendered children you are addressing, then that's a different topic entirely.

And what about the 'privacy rights' of those males or females are who are 'forced' to share their washroom with some mysterious third sex? Do their rights go out the window when one transgendered person makes their own subjective decision about which washroom they 'prefer' to use?

[Donkey]

Presented this way, it is not ideological, no.

However, an ideological argument could be that it is modern society which has perverted the human soul. Reality "as it is" is not acceptable or is here to be fixed. Sure, but that's a load of bull pucky.


It makes sense that a well ordered Society forbids homosexuality, since it aims at reproducing itself and reproduction can only occure with two sexes. The fact that homosexuality becomes socially acceptable is a direct product of western individualism.
Well kudos to Western individualism then.

[Margot]

Well, maybe not in the USA, no. Marriage is very much still "in". Not so in Europe, believe me. France, for example, introduced the the PACS a few years ago - and the verb "pacser" was born / je me pacse, tu te pacses, Pierre et Jean se sont pacsés etc. . I do not know the details, but the idea behind was to enable people who live together (no matter how) to have the same rights as far as succession is concerned for example, or accession to real estate. A very pragmatic law. The people against the law, however, called it "marriage-light" at the time, arguing that it was making traditional marriage with it flury of legal and tax privileges, useless.

Indeed many young couples will "pacse" rather than get married.

Similarly, 30% children (quoting from the top of my hat!) are born within couples which are not married. It makes no difference what so ever since the father gets exactly the same rights as long as he recognises the child at his birth. I know such couples, long loving relationship with three to four children, and they are wise considering the divorce rate !

Marriage is more and more perceived as a social institution which says nothing on the quality of the relationship.

While this was happening in France, the Netherlands next door were introducing Gay marriage. Why ? To make it socially acceptable.



There is nothing wrong except that ideology should not mix up with sexuality. Sexuality is individual. It belongs to the private sphere. I think that sexual orientation is none of "society"'s business -either way.

The school you go to, openly biased towards an ultra minuscule group, is for sure not run by a religious group or by Republicans ? Very honestly, however, it seems to me that it shows as much bigottry as a religious convent providing education to young girls only and teaching that there should be no sex before marriage.

The message is the opposite (sexual openess v. sexual restriction) but the spirit is the same.

I've always experienced the gay-marriage thing as a "separate but equal is still inherently unequal" issue. And it's true. I'd be totally OK if everyone in America (or France, or The Netherlands or anywhere else) would "pacse" instead of marry. That's not the case, at least here. I don't care what it is, but call it by the same name for everyone and give everyone those rights. Do gays in france have the right to marry as well as "pacse", or do straight people have two options while gays only have one?

People who seriously can't make the extra few steps into the store are a vast minority, but we still give them good parking spaces. People with no eyes get brail on everything. Depressed people get to see doctors and receive medication for their debilitating depression. Hell, we've got a little blue pill for flaccid peckers (which is paid for by insurance).

I'm serious here, do you think that transexuals are fakes? That there isn't something fundamentally different going on up in their heads to make them that way. That they don't actually feel like a third gender?

I disagree. This isn't an ideology issue, this is a medical issue. Gender Identity Disorders are very real, and very diagnosable. Transgendered people are real, and different from you and I.

[Margot]

Transgendered kids? Are you kidding? :eek:

I don't think we're talking about children here. I was under the assumption that we are talking about legal adults here. All my comments on the topic are relevant to the assumption that we are talking about legal age adults. If it is transgendered children you are addressing, then that's a different topic entirely.

And what about the 'privacy rights' of those males or females are who are 'forced' to share their washroom with some mysterious third sex? Do their rights go out the window when one transgendered person makes their own subjective decision about which washroom they 'prefer' to use?

I was talking about legal adults. I apologize, I get a little idiom-happy.

[Margot]

I haven't stated that anyone should or shouldn't have anything.

I'm merely addressing the issue that was raised above about how people seem to be pretty darn arbitrary about which micro-minorities get official sanction and which ones get ignored. This seems interesting to me.

Secondly, the examples you give already show that the 'transgendered' have the one 'thing' that all minorities seem to fight tooth and nail to get - official recognition - which they translate as "validation by the Government". This is always the most important goal of minority activist groups (as it validates the activism as well).

Gay marriage is a classic example of this. The principle of legal same-sex marriage is VERY important to gays generally - because it represents official government validation of their status (and that is VERY important to a remarkable number of 'minorities').

Apparently gay men interested in actually having a 'gay marriage' are rather a tiny minority within the small gay minority (i.e. gay males outnumber lesbians by 3:1 in most surveys - but lesbian couples make up some two-thirds of all same-sex marriages (and probably 90% of same-sex divorces!). The two-thirds figure comes from Toronto's City Hall - I don't have a link for it. Btw, the same Toronto City Hall figures showed that 1/3 of all same sex marriages registered in Toronto are non-Canadians (ie. Americans).

Gay men support the right of gay marriage - but gay men generally aren't the slightest bit interested in exercising that right.

Isn't that a statistic also represented in straight men as well? Like, isn't that the stereotype; swooning girl who has planned her marriage since her very inception and the more reserved man who really doesn't care?

I side with gay men, then, in that the right shouldn't be denied, but I'm really not into getting married.


Actually, the washroom example shows the real issue here. It is quite common for people to insist on the sanctity of principles only so long as the principles require other people to do something. As soon as the principle requires an inconvenience on their part, the principles tend to go out the window.

In other words, 'transgendered' is so massively important that it has to be categorized as a separate 'third sex' on all forms. But it isn't important enough to warrant separate washrooms which are (and always have been) separated by sex. If transgendered is truly a 'third sex' then it MUST have its own public washrooms. But that's inconvenient for the 'transgendered' so they skip that demand?

Seems like discrimination is always selective isn't it?

Gender and sex aren't the same thing, are they? Gender is what one identifies as, sex is more the downstairs plumbing. Bathrooms are classified by sex, not gender.

[Americano]

We need a practicing psychiatrist to settle the issue of 'why' with Chaz. At that point we can debate the professional's educational ideology with regard to psychology (they all follow varying disciplines) and the MD side of that oracle can tell us if the newly acquired dick will properly function without Viagra in conjunction with Chaz's biological urges and emotional desires.

Chaz's father is dead, ran into a tree while downhill skiing, which some shrinks could interpret as a death wish for being socially constrained in the closet, if enough billing hours were available, but my wife who knows about entertainment lifestyles from that era states he was pretty much a female pussy hound. I'd think analyzing that side of Chaz's ancestry is fruitless. Unless, of course, the professional follows a school of thought that says otherwise if the available billing hours were adequate. Which would include professional hours with Cher, who isn't about to tell the public anything about her past life they don't already know. She does have an image she adheres to.

[Evangeline]

Yes, this is a very good point - albeit a troublesome one!

The whole idea of some people seeking to have a sex change operation to 'correct' the physiological 'error' of their birth-gender, does seem to impinge upon the traditionally common gay argument that one is 'born gay' (biologically speaking) and that's that.

The argument of sexual reassignment surgery asserts that biology makes 'errors'. Ergo, being 'born gay' may be just another 'error' that ought to be corrected with surgery.

Personally, I think the gay movement is foolish to invest so much intellectual capital into the issue of holding 'born gay' as dogma since it is inherently a problematic assertion (for biological, philosophical and political reasons).

If a gay person is not born gay, how and why do they become gay?

And if a straight person isn't born straight, same question.

I don't think we can choose to be one or the other. When we reach puberty, or even before, we have crushes and attractions, and it's not a chosen thing, it just happens. I can't choose to be gay, just as a gay person can't choose to be straight.

[Sucre]

If a gay person is not born gay, how and why do they become gay?

And if a straight person isn't born straight, same question.

I don't think we can choose to be one or the other. When we reach puberty, or even before, we have crushes and attractions, and it's not a chosen thing, it just happens. I can't choose to be gay, just as a gay person can't choose to be straight.
But why is it important ???

Somebody who is gay is gay. Period. Whether it is because he was born this way or because he had a difficult relationship with his mother and lost his father at 5 is irrelevant. Why does it matter and why discuss the subject at all ?

[Dominick]

But why is it important ???

Somebody who is gay is gay. Period. Whether it is because he was born this way or because he had a difficult relationship with his mother and lost his father at 5 is irrelevant. Why does it matter and why discuss the subject at all ?
I've never understood the relevancy of that discussion either. It might be interesting psychologically, medically or sociologically but politically I don't see its importance. Equal rights are to be issued indiscriminately regardless of background, motivation or cause.
It's hard to think of a more personal choice than switching gender, or sex or whatever. And personal means just that : it's the business of the individual concerned and possibly a few people that could be affected by it, but it's certainly not the business of the state or the community to retract any rights from that individual because of that choice.

[Michael]

If a gay person is not born gay, how and why do they become gay?

And if a straight person isn't born straight, same question.

I don't think we can choose to be one or the other. When we reach puberty, or even before, we have crushes and attractions, and it's not a chosen thing, it just happens. I can't choose to be gay, just as a gay person can't choose to be straight.
These are very interesting and complicated questions.

I think the key issue turns on the difference between "homosexuality" and "gay identity".

It may be true that people are 'born' homosexual or heterosexual (or bisexual) - though I'm not entirely convinced that is so. But the label of "straight" or "gay" are identity labels that one certainly does make an active socio-cultural choice to "accept" or "reject" for yourself.

[Michael]

But why is it important ???
Because those who are "born gay" have a very strong argument against legal discrimination.

If gay is a choice, then it is simply a lifestyle choice and thus not eligible or suitable for legal protections.

Thus, "born gay" was adopted by US gay activists many years ago and it has become something close to 'dogma' ever since.

I of course have always argued that "born gay" was bad politics because it panders to the critics' bad arguments and because it is an inherently dangerous argument to make vis-a-vis genetics and DNA coming onto the market.

Somebody who is gay is gay. Period. Whether it is because he was born this way or because he had a difficult relationship with his mother and lost his father at 5 is irrelevant. Why does it matter and why discuss the subject at all ?
I don't think it is that simple.

For many, the choice is actually, "should I just pretend I'm straight and go along with the program and make my life so much easier and less hassle from parents, family, work, school, friends, etc (ie. make people happy by giving them the lies they want so badly) - or should I risk being an outcast and hated for the sake of gaining nothing but the principle of honesty?"

The enormous numbers of homosexuals still 'in the closet' shows that this is a common way of dealing with the issue. The fact that one doesn't have to formally accept the label of 'gay identity' to just have homosexual sex, makes this choice a viable one - in may ways, it seems to be more common than the 'come out' choice.

[Michael]

I've never understood the relevancy of that discussion either. It might be interesting psychologically, medically or sociologically but politically I don't see its importance. Equal rights are to be issued indiscriminately regardless of background, motivation or cause.
That's pure ideology.

In reality, "rights" are doled out sparingly, only to those who are politically powerful enough to demand them.

Rights themselves have no meaning or context outside of the legalese they are codified in and the will of the political elites to enforce them and the jurisdiction they apply to.

And that is why "born gay" is such big issue. If it is true, then there is no reason to deny 'rights' (since they are a noisy and politically powerful group).

If not "born gay" then a whole new argument is needed to justify these rights (and lots of gay activists don't want to go there, so that's that).

One does need to know something about the history of the gay rights movement to understand the 'context' of these issues. The 1970s gay activist movement was closely allied with the radical feminist movement and held that gays (and women) were oppressed (by definition) by the capitalist-corporate patriarchy. As such, many tactics originate in the desire to 'attack' the patriarchy rather than to focus upon actual advancements for gay rights.

The modern 'gay rights' movement is a new group that broke away from the 'revolution-set' and has been focusing on concrete legal rights - like employment discrimination and marriage. But the old strategies, language and tactics are still out there.

Please Note: I'm not arguing in favor or against the "born gay" argument here. I'm describing the context of what it is and where it came from and why the gay rights activists are 'married' to the idea.

[Sucre]

That's not ideology. That's fact in many countries which have chosen that way of giving rights. If all men are equal, all men are equal, period. Regardeless of their race, gender ... or sexual orientation.

This is actually positive law.

[Sucre]

But in any case (even if I do not agree with the principle and think this is failed politics) I understand better why this is such a big issue in the US.

[drgoodtrips]

I've never understood the relevancy of that discussion either. It might be interesting psychologically, medically or sociologically but politically I don't see its importance.

In the US, it is of paramount importance to the Christian Right. If being homosexual is a sin, and yet homosexuals are born that way, the universe explodes (or whatever). It necessarily implies a sadistic Christian God - creating people the way they are and then damning them for it.

Labeling homosexuality a choice is important to the religious argument against it.

[partofme]

In the US, it is of paramount importance to the Christian Right. If being homosexual is a sin, and yet homosexuals are born that way, the universe explodes (or whatever). It necessarily implies a sadistic Christian God - creating people the way they are and then damning them for it.

Labeling homosexuality a choice is important to the religious argument against it.

It's sort of that way with impure thoughts anyway. People naturally have sexual desires but according to them are damned for it. So why would this be different?

[Michael]

In the US, it is of paramount importance to the Christian Right. If being homosexual is a sin, and yet homosexuals are born that way, the universe explodes (or whatever). It necessarily implies a sadistic Christian God - creating people the way they are and then damning them for it.

Labeling homosexuality a choice is important to the religious argument against it.
Well stated. :thumbsup:

[Evangeline]

But why is it important ???

Somebody who is gay is gay. Period. Whether it is because he was born this way or because he had a difficult relationship with his mother and lost his father at 5 is irrelevant. Why does it matter and why discuss the subject at all ?

It interests me.

[Evangeline]

I've asked several gay people during my life this question. And all of them are convinced they were born the way they are, gay. They were attracted to the same sex as soon as they discovered attraction.

[Margot]

That's not ideology. That's fact in many countries which have chosen that way of giving rights. If all men are equal, all men are equal, period. Regardeless of their race, gender ... or sexual orientation.

This is actually positive law.

Married couples in France are given the opportunity to enter into two forms of civil unions: Marriage and "pacse"(ing?).
Correct?
Are gays in France offed the same choice? The same two options?

I'm sorry if you answered that question before. Maybe I'm missing it. I'll check again.

[Sucre]

Married couples in France are given the opportunity to enter into two forms of civil unions: Marriage and "pacse"(ing?).
Correct?
Are gays in France offed the same choice? The same two options?

I'm sorry if you answered that question before. Maybe I'm missing it. I'll check again.
PACS is for everybody - Not just for heterosexual couples. Actually it was devised following the scandal of an long time homosexual couple, one of them died and his boyfriend had to move out of the appartment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9

And althought it is mostly used by homosexual couples, it can be used by just any adult together (regardless whether they sleep together or not :cool:!).

For example, two old ladies who live together, have no relatives and wish that the second person be taken are of after death of one of the two ...

It is "marriage" because it provides some of the legal and tax benefits usually accompanying marriage.

The conservatives in France were mostly worried that the usual form of marriage would go loose, undermining traditional family values.

[Sucre]

Addendum to my previous post :
Gay couples in France may not get into a traditional marriage which is reserved to heterosexual couples.

In which case, you are right if you mean that they do not have the same rights. But here you have the argument to fight for the legalisation of same sex marriage (not PACS), meaning a higher level of commitment and creation of a family.

To be very honest, I have not been following on the debate as I am mildly interested, to say the least !!!

As I see it, marriage is a right but it also goes with many many many duties. Our society is getting more individualistic. While I see the necessity of regulating succession, tax issues etc. and most importanly protecting children, I don't see any advantage in extending the reach of marriage which has been devised to stengthen, not individual rights, but family rights within society.

[Sucre]

I'm serious here, do you think that transexuals are fakes? That there isn't something fundamentally different going on up in their heads to make them that way. That they don't actually feel like a third gender?
Ask me if I "feel" like a woman ? I feel like myself. I do not know how other women "feel", probably very differently from the way I feel.

I am a short brunette relatively attractive woman ? Tall fat blond unattractive women probably feel way differently from the way I do.

Especially if they are lesbian while I have always been attracted to men.

In fact, I know for a fact that an American woman will "feel" differently about certain things as well as I do not feel the same as women from other cultures.

Each person is UNIQUE and feels differently be it because of sex/gender, culture or personal history.

In this context, the whole gender argument is completely over-stated.

I disagree. This isn't an ideology issue, this is a medical issue. Gender Identity Disorders are very real, and very diagnosable. Transgendered people are real, and different from you and I.
Well, there would not be any medical issue without the ideology issue. If drgoodtrip is right, it is quite clear that the entire pro and countra argumentation is derived from the way the religious right has presented the issue. The entire follow-up argumentation will thrive to prove that the Right is wrong.

It is a fact that all western societies, including the USA with its relative mixity, have patriarchial roots. A patriarchal society goes with a number of values, amongst them the relative low status of women, monogamy (and the bonds of marriage) and heterosexuality. Everything that does not fit into this conception of society is labelled as "unnatural", "immoral" etc. Aldutery women will be stoned and only heterosexual men qualified as "straight" - homesexuals being "bent" (?), in any case not "normal", maybe they should consult a psychanalist ? >At the end, this leads to a "Gender Identity Disorder" :ummm: .

There would be no disorder if we only truely accept that other people may be different and we understand the underlying norms shaping our perception of what is in order and what is a disorder.

(ps. Or maybe there is a "disorder" but not the one "up-front". I see a lot of similarities between Chaze and Michael Jackon for example ...)

(pps. What I just stated above does not mean that we may accept all kind of behaviours as being "normal" either This is tricky !)

[The Drunk Guy]

There would be no disorder if we only truely accept that other people may be different and we understand the underlying norms shaping our perception of what is in order and what is a disorder.


Very good linguistic visual there. :D

I find it amusing that we even have major discussions about these issues. It is my philosophical cornerstone that what someone does behind closed doors is no one's business but their own. And those aren't just the bedroom doors, but also their front door. It's not my fucking business and no one has a right to judge them over how they choose to lead their lives.

[The Drunk Guy]

It's sort of that way with impure thoughts anyway. People naturally have sexual desires but according to them are damned for it. So why would this be different?
Because they already made up a cutesy little story explaining sexual urges and how they're a curse because that bitch didn't listen to God. They don't have a cutesy story explaining homosexuality. I find that interesting because homosexual relations were much more commonplace during that era. Maybe its not a sin. ;)

[Dominick]

In the US, it is of paramount importance to the Christian Right. If being homosexual is a sin, and yet homosexuals are born that way, the universe explodes (or whatever). It necessarily implies a sadistic Christian God - creating people the way they are and then damning them for it.

Labeling homosexuality a choice is important to the religious argument against it.
So it's the fruitcakes that get to define the extent and boundaries of the debate ? Shame on everyone else (the majority, no ?) for allowing them to do so.

[Sucre]

It is my philosophical cornerstone that what someone does behind closed doors is no one's business but their own. And those aren't just the bedroom doors, but also their front door. It's not my fucking business and no one has a right to judge them over how they choose to lead their lives.
Thank you. I completely agree. :)

[Sucre]

So it's the fruitcakes that get to define the extent and boundaries of the debate ? Shame on everyone else (the majority, no ?) for allowing them to do so.
Yes : I agree here too. :)

[Michael]

So it's the fruitcakes that get to define the extent and boundaries of the debate ? Shame on everyone else (the majority, no ?) for allowing them to do so.
Um... bad choice of language for this topic. According the rightwing folks who define the debate, "fruitcake" specifically is a common term of reference for the gays and their political supporters.

Indeed, if the "fruitcakes" actually did define the boundaries of the debate, I suspect it would be a very different one. :D

[Dominick]

Um... bad choice of language for this topic. According the rightwing folks who define the debate, "fruitcake" specifically is a common term of reference for the gays and their political supporters.

Indeed, if the "fruitcakes" actually did define the boundaries of the debate, I suspect it would be a very different one. :D
Damn, I had no idea. Is there a TED ? (Texas English Dictionary)

[Michael]

If a gay person is not born gay, how and why do they become gay?

And if a straight person isn't born straight, same question.
I think these questions, 'beg the question'.

That is to say, if you ask mathematicians if they like math or not, you are probably going to get 99.99% of them say "yes, I love math".

The trick is to ask the question of some people who don't fully identify with the 100% straight or 100% gay labels.

For example, quite a few studies have shown that young males may have 'same-sex' experience rates in the 25-35% range for under 18's. Less than 5% of adult males claim to be 100% gay. This suggests that some 20% plus of the adult male population has had sexual experiences with other males yet don't claim to be gay. Indeed, many of these males would be classified as 'heterosexual' as they go onto get married and raise children. To these men, the question of "born gay or not born gay" doesn't make sense (or at the very least, isn't a black and white issue).

As I noted above - I think there is a big difference between engaging in same-sex behavior and identifying with the label of 'gay'. There's a big 'gap' between the groups of 100% hetro and 100% homo. Those later two groups can easily agree that one is 'born that way'. The people who don't fall into these two groups (somewhere in between them) may view the issue rather differently than 'born gay or not born gay'. To them, there are elements of choice involved.

I don't think we can choose to be one or the other. When we reach puberty, or even before, we have crushes and attractions, and it's not a chosen thing, it just happens. I can't choose to be gay, just as a gay person can't choose to be straight.
I think this is true for only about 75% of the population. For the other 25%, there is some grey area here.

[drgoodtrips]

So it's the fruitcakes that get to define the extent and boundaries of the debate ? Shame on everyone else (the majority, no ?) for allowing them to do so.

When the "fruitcakes" have a coalition large enough to affect policy decisions, they certainly get a say. When they also have the status quo and law currently on their side, I'd say they get to define the debate.

And, no, I don't think the majority in the US supports homosexual marriage, although I believe it is getting closer to that point (almost even now). And, it will keep gaining momentum, since it is overwhelmingly older voters that oppose it. Interestingly, even "homophobic" people my age express sentiments like "I think it's gross, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to get married."

[drgoodtrips]

Um... bad choice of language for this topic. According the rightwing folks who define the debate, "fruitcake" specifically is a common term of reference for the gays and their political supporters.

Indeed, if the "fruitcakes" actually did define the boundaries of the debate, I suspect it would be a very different one. :D

:lol:

I was thinking the same thing when I read that post. It took me a minute to figure out what was going on...

[Michael]

When the "fruitcakes" have a coalition large enough to affect policy decisions, they certainly get a say. When they also have the status quo and law currently on their side, I'd say they get to define the debate.
Actually, the constitutional structure of the US Senate ensures that a minority of some 12-15% of the US population can hold a permanant veto over anything any majority wants.

This of course only holds ONLY if that minority view is a rural mid-western/southern one.

[dilettante]

Actually, the constitutional structure of the US Senate ensures that a minority of some 12-15% of the US population can hold a permanant veto over anything any majority wants.

This of course only holds ONLY if that minority view is a rural mid-western/southern one.

Intriguing. After reading this I had to crunch the numbers and you're correct. Assuming that the senators from the 21 states listed below vote in unison they could effectively filibuster any legislation. The population of these 21 states makes up ~11% of the US population.

21 least populous states (sufficient to filibuster the senate):
Iowa,Mississippi,Arkansas,Kansas,Utah,Nevada,New Mexico,West Virginia,Nebraska,Idaho,Maine,New Hampshire,Hawaii,Rhode Island,Montana,Delaware,South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota,Vermont, and Wyoming
However, they notably are not all in the South or Midwest. 4 are from New England, 4 are from the South-West, 1 is from the Mid-Atlantic, and Alaska and Hawaii are out there on their own.

If we exclude the South-West, West Coast, and North-East states from consideration and look for the 21 smallest Southern/Mid-West states (and broadly define "Southern" to include anything South of Pennsylvania) we find that they make up ~24.5% of the population.

21 least populous Southern/Mid-West states (sufficient to filibuster the senate):
Indiana,Tennessee,Missouri,Maryland,Wisconsin,Minn esota,Alabama,South Carolina,Louisiana,Kentucky,Oklahoma,Iowa,Mississi ppi,Arkansas,Kansas,West Virginia,Nebraska,Idaho,Montana,South Dakota,North DakotaOn the other hand, just to be fair, we could find the 21 least populous states outside the South/Mid-West and see what percentage they make up. It turns out that an anti-South/MidWest coalition could contain a minimum of ~29% of the US population.

21 least populous non Southern/Mid-West states (sufficient to filibuster the senate):
Pennsylvania,Ohio,Michigan,New Jersey,Washington,Arizona,Massachusetts,Colorado,O regon,Connecticut,Utah,Nevada,New Mexico,Maine,New Hampshire,Hawaii,Rhode Island,Delaware,Alaska,Vermont,Wyoming
Of course, in reality only 51% of the people in those states have to vote for their chosen senator to get him/her elected, so we can divide the percentage numbers roughly in half.

Conclusions:


In the most extreme scenario, ~5.5% of the US population could conceivably stop legislation in the Senate via filibuster. However, that 5.5% would have to be scattered just right through the 21 smallest states, only a minority of which are Southern or Midwestern.
If we limit ourselves to Southern or Midwestern states, the necessary percentage of the population rises to ~12.5%.
On the other hand, if we exclude the Southern and Midwestern states, the necessary percentage is about ~14.5%, or roughly the same as if we only allowed the South and Midwest.

Thoughts?

* population stats taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population)

[Margot]

PACS is for everybody - Not just for heterosexual couples. Actually it was devised following the scandal of an long time homosexual couple, one of them died and his boyfriend had to move out of the appartment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9

And althought it is mostly used by homosexual couples, it can be used by just any adult together (regardless whether they sleep together or not :cool:!).

For example, two old ladies who live together, have no relatives and wish that the second person be taken are of after death of one of the two ...

It is "marriage" because it provides some of the legal and tax benefits usually accompanying marriage.

The conservatives in France were mostly worried that the usual form of marriage would go loose, undermining traditional family values.

But these two forms of union are not equal, which means it doesn't quite fit with you saying "f all men are equal, all men are equal, period. Regardeless of their race, gender ... or sexual orientation." I mean, it's a legal recognition of a same-sex couple (or your other examples), but it isn't a marriage. It's not the same, it is inherently unequal.

Yeah, I can't lie, I think it's really cool, but it's also not the same. To be totally equal, to provide that "all men are equal, period" then all men must have the same opportunities. To be truly equal to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples must either have the opportunity to either pasce or marry, or heterosexuals must be limited to one choice as well.

[Sucre]

But these two forms of union are not equal, which means it doesn't quite fit with you saying "f all men are equal, all men are equal, period. Regardeless of their race, gender ... or sexual orientation." I mean, it's a legal recognition of a same-sex couple (or your other examples), but it isn't a marriage. It's not the same, it is inherently unequal.

Yeah, I can't lie, I think it's really cool, but it's also not the same. To be totally equal, to provide that "all men are equal, period" then all men must have the same opportunities. To be truly equal to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples must either have the opportunity to either pasce or marry, or heterosexuals must be limited to one choice as well.
Yes, I agree. This is why there was an addumdum to my post. If you are not totally "equal", here is your argument ! I want equality of rights ! All revolutions/ evolutions were made on this basis. Including the women rights movement (*)

A point of argument though is "which rights " matter ? What are the right. Is marriage a right ?

(* NB : And the opponents will find specious arguments to prove that in this special case, the principle of equality of rights does not apply.)

I do not know though whether this argument is used or not by the pro same sex marriage because I have not been following this.

[Margot]

Yes, I agree. This is why there was an addumdum to my post. If you are not totally "equal", here is your argument ! I want equality of rights ! All revolutions/ evolutions were made on this basis. Including the women rights movement (*)

A point of argument for example is "which rights " matter ? What are the right. Is marriage a right ?

(* NB : And the opponents will find specious arguments to prove that in this special case, the principle of equality of rights does not apply.)

I do not know though whether this argument is used or not by the pro same sex marriage because I have not been following this.

ah. I'm sorry. I must be too sleepy to comprehend anything today. I'll go take a nap.

[Greendruid]

I've been enjoying the fray here about sex and gender and I've even spotted some marked similarities in the ways in which all of you (Westerners by our growing definition of such) have engaged this topic.

I would like to start by entering into the discussion one of the most confusing things to Westerners about, well, a good chunk of the cultures in the area of the world known as Oceania. Many of these cultures do not view sex or gender in the ways that we do. In fact, many of my students simply can never get past my favourite statement, "What if there were not just two 'straight' genders and then homosexuals? What if you lived in a society where there were five?" Let's go back to the basics first though.

I think it was MCMF23 who more or less correctly articulated that sex is biological and gender is social. Biological sex in humans is 99% of the time a matter of male or female. There are of course variants on this including developmental problems resulting in hermaphrodites and genetic problems resulting in the sex chromosomes being represented as X (Turner's syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome)), XXY (Klinefelter's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome)), XYY Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome), and many variants of aneuploidy (abnormal number of chromosome). Determining sex in humans is actually quite complicated and there are more than just these factors of sex chromosomes determining biological sexual characteristics. There are expressions of hormones and phenotypic (outward) appearances that are controlled by a complex interplay of several genetic markers. The extra X chromosomes themselves can be said to overproduce female characteristics. Extra Y chromosomes overproduce male characteristics. These all have their prices on the lifespan of such individuals. I do want to point out that many of these can even go relatively undetected at the genetic level for a lot of people. The abnormalities get translated into personal quirks and the bearers themselves are sometimes completely unaware.

I think this levels the argument that all people are born equal - we are not. We require laws to do even this out if that is the kind of society we wish to build.

Now let's turn to the cultural and social layers that are added to the concept of gender. I will concede to Sucre's argument that time and place in history itself bears some weight on what is perceived as normative. However, the reality of the VAST number of possibilities isn't even being glimpsed here yet. Let's start with something simple. Some cultures consider age to affect the gender categories of people. We do this in "Western culture" sometimes without even realising it. We generally don't sexualise grey-haired people unless we ourselves are grey-haired. The mainstream media wouldn't try to sell a car or beer with a septuagenarian flaunting her saggy boobs. It isn't sexually valued in our culture. Likewise, it is forbidden and illegal in our culture to sexualise minors unless one is also a minor, though the interpretation of this caveat is varied in our various countries. In many of the groups that live on Papua New Guinea, all children of both sexes belong to one gender group until they become young men or women through rites of passage. Post-menopausal women and elderly men are in two different gender groups as well.

Let's try something a little more difficult to grasp. What if activities considered to be homosexual activities in most Western countries (consenting sodomy, male-to-male fellatio) were not considered to be homosexual activities at all in other cultures? In fact, what if these were practiced by "straight" men with other "straight" men or even pubescent boys in order to turn them into "straight" men because that's how you believed one became a "straight" man? What if a man marrying another man was actually not a homosexual marriage, such as in the case of the berdache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berdache) of many North American Aboriginal groups? The category of a third gender on a form doesn't even come close to describing the numerous possibilities that are out there.

Just as a side question, why the hell does a school need to know if your gender is male, female or trans anyway?

To return to the OP and the issue of transgendered people, I think that the battle between the sexual category that is determined at conception and in utero and the gender category that is shaped thereafter is evidently not easily resolved in some people. It becomes a full out war of self (cultural) and self (biological) and these are entirely possible to be two very different things. Whether a penis will make Chaz feel better about himself remains to be seen, both by him and the media I suppose. I can't imagine what it would have been like to have been raised by Cher. Likewise, as a straight, white, middle-class man I can't imagine what it is like for many minority groups in society. Very few of my personal categories belong to a minority, though my religion stands far and beyond the norms of my culture. However, it isn't a visible one. For Chaz Bono, he feels this is a visible mismatch. That has not become his choice - that has become his self through whatever processes leading up to this point in his life, both external and internal. I cannot imagine the struggle and I wouldn't want to. To accomodate society to accept and recognise differences is all we can do. We are not born equal - not even close. If we wish to build a society of equality we cannot draw lines, we have to erase all lines. Again, as a straight, white, middle-class man I've been shown lots of lines that I didn't even know existed time and time again. My role models are never far from mass media representation. I always feel "welcome" in my own culture. I can't even conceive of what it feels like to not have that reaffirmed every time I see a billboard, watch a major movie or see a commerical. My own religious discrimination issues are as close as I have ever come and these are liveable discrepancies in 2009.

[Birdzeye]

That's an excellent post, Green. I think my discomfort over the news of Chaz Bono comes from a discomfort over having to re-think of "her" as "him" now.

I don't know Chaz Bono personally, but he (I'm still having trouble with that) is a public figure, as the result of having been born to celebrity parents.

All my life I thought of "Chastity" as "she." It just feels awkward to now have to use the pronouns "he" and "him" instead.

[Sucre]

Some cultures consider age to affect the gender categories of people. We do this in "Western culture" sometimes without even realising it. We generally don't sexualise grey-haired people unless we ourselves are grey-haired. The mainstream media wouldn't try to sell a car or beer with a septuagenarian flaunting her saggy boobs. It isn't sexually valued in our culture. Likewise, it is forbidden and illegal in our culture to sexualise minors unless one is also a minor, though the interpretation of this caveat is varied in our various countries.
Very good post, summarizing most of the discussion. I particularly found this part interesting. The bold part of your post is sometimes reflected in language. For example in German, a language with three genders /masculin - neutral - feminin / "girl", which logically should be feminine, is a neutral - Das Mädchen.

As to regard to the red part, let me just make a short remark here that this is a quite recent phenomenon in the western culture, actually brought about by the American media culture.

[Michael]

As to regard to the red part, let me just make a short remark here that this is a quite recent phenomenon in the western culture, actually brought about by the American media culture.
Yes, a good example of this is the way western art styles used to favor 'Rubenesque' sized female models of middle age. Now they tend to only use anorexic young ones. This obviously has an effect on people's perceptions of beauty.

[Sucre]

Or that it is a (beautiful but) completely botoxed Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Léa de Lonval in Stephen Frear's film "cheri". There was no botox when Colette was writing and she, herself, enjoyed sex until the very end.

[In my opinion, this simple detail kills the film.]

[Margot]

Greendruid, awesome post! Thank you.

(On most school forms the gender topic is in the "optional" section, but in the school's clinical paperwork it's there because apparently my school offers a lot of concealing in that area.)