# Transgender 'Miss Universe; Canada' Finalist Disqualified



## Randy

> *Transgender Miss Universe Canada Finalist Jenna Talackova Disqualified From Competition*
> 
> She may look every bit the part of a beauty queen, but Jenna Talackova has lost her chance for the crown because she was born a biological male.
> 
> The 23-year-old Miss Universe Canada finalist was disqualified from the competition after it was discovered she had undergone sexual reassignment surgery, reports CTV.
> 
> National director of Miss Universe Canada Denis Davila told the Toronto Star that while they consider Talackova to be a "real girl," Miss Universe rules stipulate that contestants must be a naturally born female.
> 
> Davila also told the Star that Talackova indicated on her registration form that she was born female. Talackova was disqualified the same day she revealed she was in fact born a male.
> 
> According to a statement from Miss Universe Canada, Talackova was disqualified because "she did not meet the requirements to compete despite having stated otherwise on her entry form. We do, however, respect her goals, determination and wish her the best."
> 
> In a 2010 interview, Talackova said she knew she was a female at age 4 and began hormone therapy at age 14. She underwent reassignment surgery at 19.
> 
> Talackova told CTV she's "not giving up" and is consulting a lawyer. In the mean time, Miss Universe Canada has removed all photos of the Vancouver resident from their website and another woman has taken her spot.









Transgender Miss Universe Canada Finalist Jenna Talackova Disqualified From Competition


----------



## Customisbetter

Read about this earlier. Kind of shitty but the rules have been made.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

She sure has nice hair for having been a male before. Not that males can't have nice hair, of course.


----------



## tacotiklah

I have mixed feelings on this. I think the rules are pretty shitty, but they were there in place and she wasn't completely straight up with them. I completely understand why she did what she did, and I think that this rule should not be in place, but again, they are.  
I do appreciate the committee for trying to be respectful overall. I just don't see how her being born with a penis should have ANY bearing whatsoever on how she can be eligible for a beauty contest. Hell, she even went forward and got SRS done so it's not like there's gonna be a ridiculous bulge the whole time. As far as I'm concerned she is 100% woman. Truthfully, I believe she was 100% woman mentally and internally since her birth, and just had the shitty deal of being born in a dude's body. (not unlike myself tbvh)

I think instead of her lying on the application (although I think lying is a bit strong in this situation), she should have made an effort to get the rule repealed first. But outside of that, I support her completely in having a right to compete.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I don't know how I feel about this. As a male, I kinda feel uncomfortable that the lines between male and female are kinda being blurred, but on the other hand I think it's unfair she can't be a part of something because society doesn't agree with her own personal choices, despite the fact they don't harm anyone else.


----------



## ElRay

I think I might need new glasses. I clicked on the thread expecting to see info about a winner disqualified in a TG pageant because she was a genetic female. 

Ray


----------



## troyguitar

The rules don't sound that clear to me. What does it mean to be a "naturally born female"? Does being born by C-section disqualify an entrant? What if one's parents are on some kind of fertility drugs or use something like IVF? What about babies born with male and female organs whose doctors/parents decide to have them go female? It's not quite a black and white statement.


----------



## Greatoliver

troyguitar said:


> The rules don't sound that clear to me. What does it mean to be a "naturally born female"? Does being born by C-section disqualify an entrant? What if one's parents are on some kind of fertility drugs or use something like IVF? What about babies born with male and female organs whose doctors/parents decide to have them go female? It's not quite a black and white statement.



You could test them genetically, which would solve a lot of the cases: XX or XY, which would give their "biological gender". You'd get problems if you had XXY, as I'm not quite sure if you form male or female sex organs. However gentically testing people is definitely not viable economically.

It seems like the Universe competition is about appearances etc., not actually about genetics so it seems a bit weird they've made this distinction. As GoP said, she did lie and there is the rule in place, even if it is questionable, and that's not good.


Interesting.


----------



## MFB

Ugh oh, not sure if I should be attracted or afraid of myself for wanting to be attracted  CURSE YOU SURGEONS, CURSE YOU!


----------



## pink freud

Like I said on HCPP, I'm more concerned with the pro-human bias in a supposed _universal_ competition.


----------



## tacotiklah

MFB said:


> Ugh oh, not sure if I should be attracted or afraid of myself for wanting to be attracted  CURSE YOU SURGEONS, CURSE YOU!




Well clearly this means that you're now gay and must march in parades and speak with a lisp for the rest of your life. 

Or it could mean that you're a guy that knows beauty when you see it, and doesn't give a fuck about what's under the hood....


----------



## Jakke

Adam Of Angels said:


> She sure has nice hair for having been a male before. Not that males can't have nice hair, of course.



I, for one, have very nice hair

OTT, this is a pretty stupid disqualification, she is obviously woman now. However, the rules are the rules, and there is not much to do about it right now.


----------



## SpaceDock

If they disqualify this, they should disqualify all cosmetic surgery entries.

If that was a man, who knows what the real women looked like before. If anyone can just pay enough to become a beauty queen what's the point?


----------



## JamesM

I wonder what's going on down there. I'm intrigued as to the current state of things.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

The rule is there, true, but that doesn't make it right. 



The Armada said:


> I wonder what's going on down there. I'm intrigued as to the current state of things.



I must admit to a similar intrigue.


----------



## Jakke

dragonblade629 said:


> I must admit to a similar intrigue.



Indeed...


----------



## tacotiklah

^I know it crushed mine. So much for my gym membership.....


----------



## groph

ghstofperdition said:


> I have mixed feelings on this. I think the rules are pretty shitty, but they were there in place and she wasn't completely straight up with them. I completely understand why she did what she did, and I think that this rule should not be in place, but again, they are.
> I do appreciate the committee for trying to be respectful overall. I just don't see how her being born with a penis should have ANY bearing whatsoever on how she can be eligible for a beauty contest. Hell, she even went forward and got SRS done so it's not like there's gonna be a ridiculous bulge the whole time. As far as I'm concerned she is 100% woman. Truthfully, I believe she was 100% woman mentally and internally since her birth, and just had the shitty deal of being born in a dude's body. (not unlike myself tbvh)
> 
> I think instead of her lying on the application (although I think lying is a bit strong in this situation), she should have made an effort to get the rule repealed first. But outside of that, I support her completely in having a right to compete.



This sounds pretty reasonable to me, the rules should ideally be appealed. Even if she still doesn't get in, she'd be the one who allowed trans people in the future to get in.



vampiregenocide said:


> I don't know how I feel about this. As a male, I kinda feel uncomfortable that the lines between male and female are kinda being blurred, but on the other hand I think it's unfair she can't be a part of something because society doesn't agree with her own personal choices, despite the fact they don't harm anyone else.



I'd just let go of the discomfort then, based on your second statement. Nothing states you don't have to be with trans people. Although granted, you'll look like a transphobe if you refuse to have sex with one because you want a ciswoman (a woman who is "biologically" female and has the social gender you'd expect) which is something I'd have a problem with as well, because if you don't want to have sex with someone you shouldn't be demonized because of it. If a dude doesn't want to bang a dude that shouldn't make him a homophobe. And I'm not trying to say that you were implying having sex with them, that's just where my mind instantly goes.. As far as "male" and "female" as social gender roles go, yeah, they're being blurred and I personally think that's a good thing. The biological distinctions are also being blurred simply because we're learning more and more through science and our social categories that correspond to scientific classifications of male and female are being revealed to be unstable and not conducive to a happy life for some people (like a trans person feeling forced to live in the wrong body out of fear).




troyguitar said:


> The rules don't sound that clear to me. What does it mean to be a "naturally born female"? Does being born by C-section disqualify an entrant? What if one's parents are on some kind of fertility drugs or use something like IVF? What about babies born with male and female organs whose doctors/parents decide to have them go female? It's not quite a black and white statement.



REALLY interesting points, where the fuck do you want to "draw the line" that DOESN'T imply some kind of transphobia or homonegativity or dickheaded intolerance (I prefer unacceptance because "tolerance" is such a low standard of coexistence)?



Greatoliver said:


> You could test them genetically, which would solve a lot of the cases: XX or XY, which would give their "biological gender". You'd get problems if you had XXY, as I'm not quite sure if you form male or female sex organs. However gentically testing people is definitely not viable economically.
> 
> It seems like the Universe competition is about appearances etc., not actually about genetics so it seems a bit weird they've made this distinction. As GoP said, she did lie and there is the rule in place, even if it is questionable, and that's not good.
> 
> 
> Interesting.



On the first paragraph, they test athletes genetically and they disqualify people who don't match up like you'd expect. I'm not sure if these tests account for XXX or XXY people, and chromosomal makeup has no bearing on your behaviour anyway.

About the second paragraph, I think you nailed it. On the one hand it's a celebration of traditional heteropatriarchal (feminist speak for "the kind of heterosexuality you're used to that you don't have to question") female beauty standards so no matter who they let in, the contest is in a sense all about objectification and holding women to a specific standard. So what, SHAME ON THE TRANS WOMAN FOR WANTING TO BE PRETTY! GAAARGH I'M A RADICAL FEMINIST ROAAAR!

On the other hand, that's bullshit. Looking traditionally feminine is not a bad fucking thing and that's the whole point. When it comes down to it, yeah it IS a competition based on appearances but the problem is not what the appearance itself is, it's the meaning a particular appearance has to society. What are the ideal measurements, 36-24-36 or something like that? Why? Why is that a standard? Personally I find bigger chicks attractive and I've also found skinnier, "tubular" as in not hour-glass shaped women attractive as well so any kind of natural, evolutionary reaction to a certain shape of a woman's body kind of goes out the window. Standards change with time - there is old art that depicts women with shitloads of cellulite as attractive.




troyguitar said:


> Also, those are some damn good surgeons:



Word. She's fucking gorgeous.



The Armada said:


> I wonder what's going on down there. I'm intrigued as to the current state of things.



Pretty sure they turn it inside out, stuff it back inside, and then use a small portion of the head as a clitoris. I think your scrote becomes vaginal lips. I can feel safe to assume that one wouldn't be able to self-lubricate like a "natural" female can (for that matter, some "natural" women can't anyway). I guess if one were to get jiggy with a trans person, you'd just have to approach things differently. But for that matter, you approach everybody differently so from that point of view it's not even that big of a deal - what we're all hung up over is that these people are still somehow "male" or "female" and that conflicts with who we're supposed to want to be with.


EDIT:






That's a better face shot of her, and actually yeah I can kind of see the male face underneath. I shouldn't be saying "male" face, I should be saying "androgynous" face. Look up some male-to-female transformation videos on Youtube, you'll be surprised at how a relatively slight-featured male face can transform into a face that passes perfectly for our current female beauty standard. If nobody told you the person was actually a guy or is trans, you wouldn't even know differently. I'd just think that I'd be looking at a woman with a strong-ish chin or sharper cheekbones or a longer nose or sturdier jaw, all are features I've seen ciswomen with so really I'm just applying "masculine" and "feminine" cultural meanings to certain facial features. Go figure.


----------



## Explorer

Is a beauty pageant a place of public accommodation? If not, what is there to appeal?

If this is a private event (not publicly funded), even if it's broadcast, then I don't think a legal challenge can succeed. 

I find it humorous that the Gay Games discriminate against straight athletes.


----------



## Xaios

Explorer said:


> I find it humorous that the Gay Games discriminate against straight athletes.



Haven't you heard? You have to be born naturally gay in order to compete in those. If you became gay later in life, they disqualify you.


----------



## vampiregenocide

groph said:


> I'd just let go of the discomfort then, based on your second statement. Nothing states you don't have to be with trans people. Although granted, you'll look like a transphobe if you refuse to have sex with one because you want a ciswoman (a woman who is "biologically" female and has the social gender you'd expect) which is something I'd have a problem with as well, because if you don't want to have sex with someone you shouldn't be demonized because of it. If a dude doesn't want to bang a dude that shouldn't make him a homophobe. And I'm not trying to say that you were implying having sex with them, that's just where my mind instantly goes.. As far as "male" and "female" as social gender roles go, yeah, they're being blurred and I personally think that's a good thing. The biological distinctions are also being blurred simply because we're learning more and more through science and our social categories that correspond to scientific classifications of male and female are being revealed to be unstable and not conducive to a happy life for some people (like a trans person feeling forced to live in the wrong body out of fear).



Any discomfort I have I disregard when it comes to the rights of others. I wouldn't feel right telling someone they can't be who they want to be if it's not hurting anyone. It'snot fair to oppress like that. My discomforts (which aren't that extreme, I'm not gonna freak out or anything around transgenders  ) are personal to me, and I would not let them effect others. 

As for that sex thing, yeah I wouldn't be able to have intercourse with someone who used to be a man. I suppose I'm old fashioned, but that would make me feel uncomfortable. Wouldn't stop me being friends with them, but when it comes to sex for me it's how you were born that matters.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I mean... If she's a chick now, she's a chick. But I guess the rules are the rules...? :-\


----------



## Deadnightshade

skip to 1:21 for my reaction


----------



## JamesM

@Groph -- I've actually watched one of the surgeries. It's _astounding_. The one I saw (they showed it after healing) actually looked like a damn vag!


I'm not going to run in circles here. If it works down there, I'd definitely smang it. She's gorgeous! Rules are rules though.


----------



## Xaios

Good that she had it done when she did. I have a buddy who's dad got a sex change later in life and became a woman. Needless to say, being the biological son of "two mommies" really threw him for a mental loop. He was really sensitive about that particular conversation topic, so we knew NOT to bring it up, or even dare poke fun at it.


----------



## tacotiklah

I agree with Xaios. It's much easier when you get it all done earlier in life. Less crap thrown at you for it. Not a day goes by that I don't wish I had just pursued this when I first discovered it at age 14 and not repress the fuck out of it up until a few months ago...


----------



## Loomer

Regardless if she was born male or not, the way she looks nowadays:

I would. I abso-fuckin'-lutely would.


----------



## tacotiklah

^ I agree. I would consider myself a very lucky girl if I woke up next to her everyday...


----------



## CapenCyber

It'd be good for everyone to realise just how similar men and women are physically. I'd say the mental differences are by far the biggest between genders, every physical difference has a common embryological origin.

If you have some time, go and look at the embryology of Male vs Female genitalia, I'd imagine it'd be very uncomfortable read for people who refuse to acknowledge Trans people as their personally identified gender to realise that for instance the clitoris is essentially a small penis without a urethra.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ If you think about it, all biological men are trans to a certain degree, because everyone starts off as female in the womb. I remember hearing that fact in biology in grade 9 and being horrified (I was going through a homophobic phase).


----------



## CapenCyber

Oh absolutely, I guess that makes more sense since men have the "blueprints" for female anatomy.

It is of course also possible to be XY and still appear outwardly female, would someone like that be able to compete? There really is no black and white...


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Hate to say it..but rules are rules..they are there for as reason. Rules state a biological female and she, in fact, is not. To be very technical about it, she's still a man, she's not female at all. So they have to be realistic..it's unfair for a man to win a beauty competition for women.


----------



## ilyti

^ Exactly. I figure it would be even more pioneering to start a beauty pageant exclusively for trans people.


----------



## tacotiklah

Many transwomen avoid pagaents to begin with since they don't want to be labeled as drag queens (and want to avoid being outed publicly like what we saw here), so I was kinda "whaaaa...." when I saw this headline tbvh. Not that I personally have anything against drag queens (love ya Drak!  ) but typically drag queens are guys that dress as chicks just for entertainment and art value. For trans people, it's much more serious than that. That's not to say that there aren't transpeople that also do drag for fun, but I've yet to meet or hear of anyone that does both. (If you know of any Drak, I'd love to read up on 'em)

I can see where she'd want to participate in the contest, since transsexuals are on the polar opposite of cispeople on the gender binary, and her mind is completely that of a female. I feel people get to hung up on "OMG she haz peN0rZ!!!!" and completely disregard the transperson's personality entirely; which to me is retarded. If she had a cyst on her ass, nobody'd be crying "Omg that's a dude!". To transsexual women, that's all a penis is; an unwanted growth between their legs. So as far as she is concerned (and I'm in 100% agreement with this), she is just a girl that had a birth defect removed. In that perspective, yeah I think it's shitty that she couldn't compete.

I'll side with Drak on the fact that no matter how shitty the rules are, they were still in place and she knew that she'd be disqualified if she was outed. She took a gamble and the dice came up as snake eyes. If I was her, I'd be spending less time trying to fight the disqualification, and more time fighting the rules in the rulebook.


----------



## matt397

I don't see what everyone is up in arms about, It's a _MISS_ Universe pageant. I completely understand that this person felt like a woman his/her whole life. I get that physically as of right now with the exception of her XY chromosome set, she is a woman. But she entered in a contest with rules that are pretty clear about being born a female, which by definition she is not. 
By all means, appeal the rules, I hope for her sake she makes a difference and has them changed.

IMO I think beauty pagents are dispicable, boring and exemplify everything that is wrong with this world. I could care less what everyone else thinks is to be considered as beautiful or pretty or whatever. Most, if not all, the women I've seen in pageants or runway super models, IMO are kinda boring an plain. As far as the person in question, my opinion stays the same, kinda boring looking.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> Many transwomen avoid pagaents to begin with since they don't want to be labeled as drag queens (and want to avoid being outed publicly like what we saw here), so I was kinda "whaaaa...." when I saw this headline tbvh. Not that I personally have anything against drag queens (love ya Drak!  ) but typically drag queens are guys that dress as chicks just for entertainment and art value. For trans people, it's much more serious than that. That's not to say that there aren't transpeople that also do drag for fun, but I've yet to meet or hear of anyone that does both. (If you know of any Drak, I'd love to read up on 'em)
> 
> I can see where she'd want to participate in the contest, since transsexuals are on the polar opposite of cispeople on the gender binary, and her mind is completely that of a female. I feel people get to hung up on "OMG she haz peN0rZ!!!!" and completely disregard the transperson's personality entirely; which to me is retarded. If she had a cyst on her ass, nobody'd be crying "Omg that's a dude!". To transsexual women, that's all a penis is; an unwanted growth between their legs. So as far as she is concerned (and I'm in 100% agreement with this), she is just a girl that had a birth defect removed. In that perspective, yeah I think it's shitty that she couldn't compete.
> 
> I'll side with Drak on the fact that no matter how shitty the rules are, they were still in place and she knew that she'd be disqualified if she was outed. She took a gamble and the dice came up as snake eyes. If I was her, I'd be spending less time trying to fight the disqualification, and more time fighting the rules in the rulebook.



Many trans people were drag queens first..AND there are people who are in the middle. Sonique, Glamorous Monique and a couple others started as drag queens and are actually going through surgery.

Secondly, I have to disagree with trans women being "women with a growth".. chromosomes don't lie. Despite how you feel..you are what you are on that level. Even with surgery she is still not a biological woman..she is still a man. She is a man competing in a woman's competition. If a biological woman competed in a trans beauty pageant (and there are many), they'd have a shit fit..especially if she won. She's not trans..just like trans technically are not women.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ I think that was more a metaphor than meant to be taken literally.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Waelstrum said:


> ^ I think that was more a metaphor than meant to be taken literally.



Obviously. My point is there's a lot more to it, and that even though one may feel that way, unfortunately the reality is they, from a physical perspective, are not female..so a trans woman is unable to compete in a competition for women


----------



## The Uncreator

If a guy grows up feeling his entire life he should be a woman, that his brain is wired that way and spends the money on cosmetic and hormonal treatment, he ends up being a woman without reproductive capabilities basically.

From my standpoint it doesn't really matter, I think in this day and age we can be mature enough to understand and comprehend these decisions. A friend of mine who is a woman actually wants to have the opposite done, and thats the way she has felt her entire life.

Rules are rules, I get it, but I think it just serves as a basis for showing us that are ideals and perceptions are do in for a good change over.

Not that society will do it, because, for the most part, not enough of us heed warnings or signs and do anything.


----------



## tacotiklah

I can see your point Drak (and I stand completely corrected) and while I don't agree 100% you have quite a few good points in there. Personally I just don't see how it matters who has/doesn't have whatever between their legs to be in a beauty contest where they are being judged with that area always covered. To me, all that should matter is that you're beautiful. 
I still agree that rules are rules and to act surprised when you get busted is dumb.
Also I kid you not, but just about every genuine transsexual I've spoken with on trans forums looks at their penis as either an over-extended clitoris (which isn't far from the truth tbvh) or some kind of weird growth that needs to be removed. I'm not that far on the trans-scale ( my gender is something like 80% female, 20% male ) and while I identify as female, I see no reason as of right now to lop it off. So I identify as a transgenderist/not a transsexual. 

I do agree that beauty contests are dumb though since it objectifies the wrong kind of beauty. Looks are superficial and fleeting, and the real beauty of a person lies within.


----------



## in-pursuit

they can't let them compete because if straight men don't feel safe jerking off while looking at pictures of the contestants, then the entire thing serves no real purpose. FYI, I would probably take her out to dinner and see where it goes from there


----------



## The Reverend

I'd like to formally welcome her to the womanhood she's always felt internally by immediately objectifying her. 1,2, 3, and...

I'd do disgusting things with her in bed. I've never had doubts or issues with my sexuality, but as far as I'm concerned, she's a woman, and a damn good-looking one at that. 

OTT, the rules were clear. I don't think the committee looked at as if her transformation was an issue, I think it was more along the lines of her dishonesty automatically disqualifying her. If she wanted to enter, she should've fought to repeal that rule, or at least have it modified.


----------



## tacotiklah

in-pursuit said:


> they can't let them compete because if straight men don't feel safe jerking off while looking at pictures of the contestants, then the entire thing serves no real purpose.




And there's where the heart of the issue comes in. It's an underlying case of perceived homophobia. 

It's like the Line Trap memes where everyone is afraid to say Bailey-Jay Granger looks hot because then people would think you're gay. Beauty is beauty and if you like a hot girl, then it shouldn't matter what's between her legs.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> And there's where the heart of the issue comes in. It's an underlying case of perceived homophobia.
> 
> It's like the Line Trap memes where everyone is afraid to say Bailey-Jay Granger looks hot because then people would think you're gay. Beauty is beauty and if you like a hot girl, then it shouldn't matter what's between her legs.



Meh...If I thought a guy was hot..him being a biological woman and having a vagina would be an immediate disqualifier. I like men..actual men..with male parts. Just like a hetero man likes a woman..an actual woman..with woman parts. What's between their legs or what they really are IS a factor for many people.


----------



## tacotiklah

Okay, I go with you on that to a certain point. But what if said transman was post-op and had one. How would you feel then?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> Okay, I go with you on that to a certain point. But what if said transman was post-op and had one. How would you feel then?



Then I'd still say no..technically she isn't a man..she just looks like one


----------



## xvultures

Am I the only one who isn't grossed out by this? Or think it's kind of ridiculous she's filing a lawsuit? The rules are there and he/she entered knowing that he/she didn't qualify for it? Besides that, who's to say he/she would even be the winner? 

Instead of getting on the lawsuit bandwagon that everyone seems to get on these days. Why not start a Pageant for transgendered people, and bring awareness and tolerance up for people who went through what he/she went through. To maybe open up the eyes or change the minds of people like me, who are completely disgusted with the whole idea of it. Just saiyan.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

xvultures said:


> Am I the only one who isn't grossed out by this? Or think it's kind of ridiculous she's filing a lawsuit? The rules are there and he/she entered knowing that he/she didn't qualify for it? Besides that, who's to say he/she would even be the winner?
> 
> Instead of getting on the lawsuit bandwagon that everyone seems to get on these days. Why not start a Pageant for transgendered people, and bring awareness and tolerance up for people who went through what he/she went through. To maybe open up the eyes or change the minds of people like me, who are completely disgusted with the whole idea of it. Just saiyan.



There are trans pageants..lots of them


----------



## sol niger 333

If you ignore the elbows she's actually pretty hot. She'd choke you out if you asked her to do the dishes though


----------



## xvultures

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> There are trans pageants..lots of them



I wonder why he/she didn't enter one of those?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

xvultures said:


> I wonder why he/she didn't enter one of those?



I'd assume for the same reason any woman joins the "Miss whatever" pageants. And he thought he could get away with it


----------



## troyguitar

I like the idea of a post-op trans chick. No periods and no need for birth control


----------



## xvultures

troyguitar said:


> I like the idea of a post-op trans chick. No periods and no need for birth control




 He's onto something!


----------



## tacotiklah

troyguitar said:


> I like the idea of a post-op trans chick. No periods and no need for birth control




You're onto one of the reasons why I'm highly attracted to people like me.


----------



## Loomer

troyguitar said:


> I like the idea of a post-op trans chick. No periods and no need for birth control



brb going on very specific dating site


----------



## in-pursuit

there are not enough of them to go around, this could present a problem....


----------



## tacotiklah

^


----------



## ViolaceousVerdance

The stakes... are just too damn high


----------



## Mexi

Transgender contestant may be allowed in Miss Universe - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News

there may yet be hope for this young woman!


----------



## r3tr0sp3ct1v3

MFB said:


> Ugh oh, not sure if I should be attracted or afraid of myself for wanting to be attracted  CURSE YOU SURGEONS, CURSE YOU!



I kinda feel the same way. It looks pretty but knowing that it is a man scares me.


----------



## tacotiklah

r3tr0sp3ct1v3 said:


> I kinda feel the same way. It looks pretty but *knowing that it is a man scares me*.



Half right good sir. She's always had the gender of a woman, but had the anatomic sex of a male up until age 19. She now has both and with the exception of being incapable of bearing children (ciswomen are not exempt from that problem either) she is 100% girl. As in if you look inside her pants, there's a vagina there. No penis in sight.

I fail to see where the "scary" part is.


----------



## Handbanana

Sorry couldn't resist, call me insensitive if you may. Shits kinda funny.


----------



## Necris

It's odd how she went from being a woman to some sort of fetish object so quickly in this thread.


----------



## vampiregenocide

ghstofperdition said:


> Half right good sir. She's always had the gender of a woman, but had the anatomic sex of a male up until age 19. She now has both and with the exception of being incapable of bearing children (ciswomen are not exempt from that problem either) she is 100% girl. As in if you look inside her pants, there's a vagina there. No penis in sight.
> 
> I fail to see where the "scary" part is.



I wouldn't say 'scary' but this kinda goes back to what I was saying. It blurs the gender divide and for some people that makes them uncomfortable. Besides, she may be considered a woman legally but to some it's what you're born as that 'matters'. You might speak to them and treat them as the gender they want to be treated as, but in the back of your mind it's still 'she used to be a dude'. That's hard to shake off for some, myself included. 

Shaking off that social conditioning can be difficult, but as long as you rise above that and treat people with respect, as they want to be treated, then personal opinions stay personal. I personally would not have a sex change, and other people's choices don't affect me therefore regardless of my opinion on the matter, it would be disrespectful of me to object to it in any way. I might find it odd or whatever, but that's not going to stop me being nice to that person.

This is probably written very poorly, I'm tired.


----------



## xvultures

ghstofperdition said:


> Half right good sir. She's always had the gender of a woman, but had the anatomic sex of a male up until age 19. She now has both and with the exception of being incapable of bearing children (ciswomen are not exempt from that problem either) she is 100% girl. As in if you look inside her pants, there's a vagina there. No penis in sight.
> 
> I fail to see where the "scary" part is.



You mean 100% freak.

Scary part is he had a dick, then chopped it off and tried to make himself into a girl. But he will *never* be a real woman. So that is the scary part.


----------



## Waelstrum

Necris said:


> It's odd how she went from being a woman to some sort of fetish object so quickly in this thread.



This is sevenstring.org: women are either sex objects or beneath a rock. 

(I would like to say that this does not represent my own opinion, as I am generally in favour of women.)


----------



## Necris

xvultures said:


> You mean 100% freak.
> 
> Scary part is he had a dick, then chopped it off and tried to make himself into a girl. But he will *never* be a real woman. So that is the scary part.


I doubt you care that you're wrong but the penis is not "chopped off" during Sex Reassignment Surgery. The testicles themselves are removed (Orchidectomy) and the the majority of tissue from the penis is removed however the surrounding skin for both is used to create the vaginal lips, labia etc. through plastic surgery.


----------



## flint757

I'd heard on my local radio that they changed the rule because of this. Is this true? I'm too lazy to actually look it up.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> Half right good sir. She's always had the gender of a woman, but had the anatomic sex of a male up until age 19. She now has both and with the exception of being incapable of bearing children (ciswomen are not exempt from that problem either) she is 100% girl. As in if you look inside her pants, there's a vagina there. No penis in sight.
> 
> I fail to see where the "scary" part is.






xvultures said:


> You mean 100% freak.
> 
> Scary part is he had a dick, then chopped it off and tried to make himself into a girl. But he will *never* be a real woman. So that is the scary part.



Well..he should be a little smarter with his opinion however he has a point.

She won't ever actually be a "real woman"..fixing the outside doesn't make the inside correct. She's a man who now resembles a woman..she's NOT a woman. She can't reproduce, because she is, in fact..a man..chromosomes don't lie. It takes more that surgically altered genitals to be a different sex..much like bleaching a black person's skin doesn't automatically mean they can call themselves Caucasian.


----------



## Powermetalbass

Update: Donald Trump says transgender model can compete - British Columbia - CBC News


----------



## The Reverend

Powermetalbass said:


> Update: Donald Trump says transgender model can compete - British Columbia - CBC News



The comments on that article are insane. I hate it.


----------



## Thrashmanzac

yeah this was on conan, she is back in the comp apparently


----------



## flint757

Ya know there are parents who pick the sex of their child when they are born how is that any different than someone doing it later in life. I DO think it makes a difference everything else is just splitting hairs.

Off topic there is a basketball player at Baylor who by our definition is very masculine and probably undefeatable against other women. Some wonder if her parents maybe chose her sex at birth and maybe she was supposed to be a man. (Yes I realize the scapegoat mentality of that)

My point is there is a lot more grey area than some are making it seem. And from a society point of view it only really matters in the bedroom and I'd hope that people would give full disclosure just like you would with many other things.

I mean not all women from birth can have kids, some women get body altering surgery, some people are born both and some would have been born another way, but they convinced doctors to change the sex. That is some pretty damn murky water IMO.


----------



## leonardo7

They are letting a man compete in a Miss pageant. Thats disgusting


----------



## Randy

PIHB


----------



## Painhawg

It's a man. No amount of surgery, chemicals or makeup will change that. We coddle people far too much. This person needs therapy, not a vagina. Do not mistake transgender with homosexuality. There is huge differences there. 

No, the buck should stop within the rules.


----------



## AxeHappy

Any rule that can only be defended with a, "Rules are Rules," type of statement, is a rule that does not deserve to exist. 



What this seems to boil down to is:
Is a person their body or their Mind? 

I've always said mind, but that might have more to due with my love of good science fiction and this theme be explored a bunch.


----------



## Pooluke41

Randy said:


> PIHB



Pee in her Butt?


----------



## in-pursuit

while I think this is probably a good thing in a lot of ways, raising a lot of question about how we perceive beauty and the definition of a woman, I have to wonder what the real reason for this outcome is. it's probably pretty safe to say that they need the publicity more than they care about doing the right thing (whatever that happens to be, is anyones guess really)


----------



## JamesM

Still wanna know what it looks like down there.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

AxeHappy said:


> Any rule that can only be defended with a, "Rules are Rules," type of statement, is a rule that does not deserve to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What this seems to boil down to is:
> Is a person their body or their Mind?
> 
> I've always said mind, but that might have more to due with my love of good science fiction and this theme be explored a bunch.



...a person is their genetic makeup. I can feel like a German Shepard but I won't be having any puppies or convincing anyone else..nor will my DNA back up my story. Despite what you think or feel you are...you are, in fact, what genetics state. She is, was, and will always be a man, no matter what she thinks or how she looks. Last time I checked, those who went through sex changes had counseling in which to discuss that. Surgeons don't (or at least didn't used to) lie and tell them they're a full fledged woman because they are not..they try to make them aware that they are just making the outer match what they feel


----------



## Waelstrum

^ Just curious (and definitely not trying to start shit) if you consider her to be a man due to her chromosomes (which makes sense in a scientific context) would you ever go to bed with a transwoman?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Waelstrum said:


> ^ Just curious (and definitely not trying to start shit) if you consider her to be a man due to her chromosomes (which makes sense in a scientific context) would you ever go to bed with a transwoman?


 
Nope. Outward appearance is she's a woman..I'm not attracted to the female form..I prefer men..in the male form..so either way she wouldn't be what I was attracted to. If it were a woman to man transexual I'd still say no..as she's not actually a man.


----------



## Waelstrum

Well that's fair enough. You want them to be male in chromosome and form (and probably have other criteria as well). In a genetic context I still see her as male, but physically she looks female, so in that context (as well as her state of mind) I reckon her to be a woman.


----------



## The Reverend

I don't really feel as if genetics should be what defines a person. I'm half-white, half-black, genetically speaking, so how should I be defined? The only answer that works in reality is by my appearance. 

In essence, I can rightfully claim to be white as much as I can black, yet that isn't a practical definition. The prevailing descriptor society uses is black, and it's the one I've come to identify with, so I suppose the the most obvious question is whether genetics can be considered the ruler by which a certain attribute should be measured?


----------



## flint757

This has no relevance, but feels worth mentioning.

Amphibians can sometimes swap sex to balance out the population (albeit they can populate) so even the chromosome argument is splitting hairs. Would I go for someone who did what she did. I don't know if someone just asked me I'd probably say no, but I'm not closed minded and my criteria for a relationship goes a bit further than the physical. That being said I don't think I'd go for a full fledged dude just not my thing. Me likes the ladies.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ Off topic, but I'm pretty sure that they change their chromosomes, or they don't have separate male/female chromosomes.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

The Reverend said:


> I don't really feel as if genetics should be what defines a person. I'm half-white, half-black, genetically speaking, so how should I be defined? The only answer that works in reality is by my appearance.
> 
> In essence, I can rightfully claim to be white as much as I can black, yet that isn't a practical definition. The prevailing descriptor society uses is black, and it's the one I've come to identify with, so I suppose the the most obvious question is whether genetics can be considered the ruler by which a certain attribute should be measured?



Well actually if you're half..then you couldn't really say you were completely one race or the other. I've known biracial people who denounce their other half..which doesn't make sense because whether they choose to realize it or not it's still there. Once again, it's a conflict of what you are vs. what you feel..and fact is usually always based in what you are...not what you feel


----------



## Powermetalbass

And this is why Canada is better than America. Do some research. When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman, so if a man gets a sex change to a woman they are in the right and every hate mongerer is in the wrong.


----------



## Pooluke41

Powermetalbass said:


> A When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman,.



Yet men cannot become pregnant, Grow a womb or Have a menstrual cycle...

You know, I could say that that Squier is a Fender just because it's made by Fender, All I need to do is add some new parts then it will be just like a Fender. 
But it's still not a Fender, it's an imitation, a replica, (That's not to say that i'm likening transgendered people to replicas... Don't hit me ghstofperdition.. )

IMHO, as much as you want to call that squier a fender, it's not a fender, even if you modify it, it's still a squier, so don't try to tell me it is a Fender USA Custom. It's a fender you modified. By all means tell people that it's a good strat and it plays well. But don't tell someone that it's something that it's not. (I mean this is the most least transphobic way possible...)


----------



## flint757

Pooluke41 said:


> Yet men cannot become pregnant, Grow a womb or Have a menstrual cycle...



I can't say I'm disappointed


----------



## Pooluke41

flint757 said:


> I can't say I'm disappointed



I can only imagine the musical possibilties.


----------



## rectifryer

This is real fucking funny. Really fucking funny. 

I interpret the rules (which were seemingly written at a 5th grade level) to mean that if you weren't born as a female, then you may not enter. I don't have a problem with this. Its a private institution, they can make rules like that if they want. 

Its like the Fieros that people make into Lamborghinis. No matter how good of a replica it is, it didn't come from the same factory.

But hey, they both still drive though right?

Overall, I find it hilarious that this pretty much forces redneck america to admit they thought a tranny was hot, and not just hot, but the hottest. Holy Hell this makes my day.


----------



## rectifryer

The Reverend said:


> I don't really feel as if genetics should be what defines a person. I'm half-white, half-black, genetically speaking, so how should I be defined? The only answer that works in reality is by my appearance.
> 
> In essence, I can rightfully claim to be white as much as I can black, yet that isn't a practical definition. The prevailing descriptor society uses is black, and it's the one I've come to identify with, so I suppose the the most obvious question is whether genetics can be considered the ruler by which a certain attribute should be measured?



I forgot society gets it right every time. Thanks for clearing your biracial status up with such a water tight argument.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Powermetalbass said:


> And this is why Canada is better than America. Do some research. When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman, so if a man gets a sex change to a woman they are in the right and every hate mongerer is in the wrong.



You are so right man..every man is really a woman....except for the genitals......and the body features......and the brain......and the genetic makeup.....but yeah..just like a woman


----------



## Jakke

Powermetalbass said:


> And this is why Canada is better than America. Do some research. When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman, so if a man gets a sex change to a woman they are in the right and every hate mongerer is in the wrong.



I find this a terrible definition, a man and a woman has a very different genetic make-up, a man is not, and will never be a woman with "extra bits". A man and a women has different chromosomes, a man has one X and one Y, a women has two X. These differences do not appear after a while, they are there from the start. To claim that we are all women from the strikes me as extremely ignorant with regards to genetics.


----------



## pink freud

Jakke said:


> I find this a terrible definition, a man and a woman has a very different genetic make-up, a man is not, and will never be a woman with "extra bits". A man and a women has different chromosomes, a man has one X and one Y, a women has two X. These differences do not appear after a while, they are there from the start. To claim that we are all women from the strikes me as extremely ignorant with regards to genetics.



That "definition" exists because our society is masculine, thus "absence of penis" means "female."

It's complete bollocks (punny pun is punny) of course.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter

Powermetalbass said:


> And this is why Canada is better than America. Do some research. When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman, so if a man gets a sex change to a woman they are in the right and every hate mongerer is in the wrong.


In some states, you're not even considered a person at that point and can be aborted. Saying every man used to be a woman is like saying every person used to be an ape. In therory, you're right, but we all know that people aren't apes and men aren't women. In essence, we're are all elements. Like carbon. But you wouldn't go up to someone and say "Hello, carbon" Because we're also made up of other things. Because we change over time. I wonder if people like you call Germany the Holy Roman Empire.


----------



## Pooluke41

pink freud said:


> That "definition" exists because our society is masculine, thus "absence of penis" means "female.".



And an Abscence of a Vagina means Man...


----------



## pink freud

Pooluke41 said:


> And an Abscence of a Vagina means Man...



Not in the subjective mindset of our culture. We're very male-oriented. Our language is masculine, referring to things as female is usually in the context of ownership. It creates a paradigm where maleness is the aspiration, and things that detract from it are lesser. It's not equal, as your post implies.


----------



## Jakke

Gothic Headhunter said:


> In some states, you're not even considered a person at that point and can be aborted. Saying every man used to be a woman is like saying every person used to be an ape. In therory, you're right, but we all know that people aren't apes and men aren't women. In essence, we're are all elements. Like carbon. But you wouldn't go up to someone and say "Hello, carbon" Because we're also made up of other things. Because we change over time. I wonder if people like you call Germany the Holy Roman Empire.



Sorry, but a mass of cells the size of a pea is not a person. If you are refering to late state abortions, my apologies.

It's not even correct on a technical level. A man is never a woman except purely on a visual level. At the moment of conception it is decided if the future child is going to be male or female, this canadian definition ignores how things really are, and puts up an arbitrary standard. It's really an example of what happens when layman politicans decide these things. 

It's just as Pink Freud says (and I did laugh at the pun), absence of penis does not mean female by definition.


----------



## matt397

Powermetalbass said:


> And this is why Canada is better than America. Do some research. When concieved we are all concieved as women. Later a man is created by adding the proper bits. So in essence every man on earth is actually a woman, so if a man gets a sex change to a woman they are in the right and every hate mongerer is in the wrong.



Please don't tarnish the name of my beautiful maple syrup and beaver filled country with your ill-informed statements, it makes us all look bad.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter

Jakke said:


> Sorry, but a mass of cells the size of a pea is not a person. If you are refering to late state abortions, my apologies.
> 
> It's not even correct on a technical level. A man is never a woman except purely on a visual level. At the moment of conception it is decided if the future child is going to be male or female, this canadian definition ignores how things really are, and puts up an arbitrary standard. It's really an example of what happens when layman politicans decide these things.
> 
> It's just as Pink Freud says (and I did laugh at the pun), absence of penis does not mean female by definition.


 I was stating that according to some people, the state of a fetus that he is talking about is not considered a person. I was not aware that gender was decided at the moment of conception, thanks for the info! I probably should've done more research before posting.


----------



## flint757

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I was stating that according to some people, the state of a fetus that he is talking about is not considered a person. I was not aware that gender was decided at the moment of conception, thanks for the info! I probably should've done more research before posting.



Well if he was a 100% right it wouldn't be possible to choose the sex of your child which it is. I don't know enough on the subject to say more and I'd end up sounding like an ass.


----------



## Jakke

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I was not aware that gender was decided at the moment of conception, thanks for the info! I probably should've done more research before posting.



No problem man

Well, to elaborate, if I may. A human egg and a sperm essentially contains one half set of chromosomes (we have a pair chromosomes of each type), because we do not "want" an unusual number of chromosomes, our bodies do not develop normally, and it can give defects like Down's syndrome (an extra chromosome of number 21 in that case). 
As a man has one Y and one X chromosome, when the "proto-sperm" (I have forgotten the naturalistic name) splits into two half sets (two sperms), we get one sperm with a Y and one with an X. As a woman has two X, every egg will contain one X.
That means it depends on the sperm to give the sex of the baby, if a Y melds with the egg, it will become a boy, and if it's an X, it will become a girl.




flint757 said:


> Well if he was a 100% right it wouldn't be possible to choose the sex of your child which it is. I don't know enough on the subject to say more and I'd end up sounding like an ass.



But then we're talking genetic manipulation, which is a completely different cup of tea. A very interesting cup nonetheless


----------



## ilyti

Pooluke41 said:


> You know, I could say that that Squier is a Fender just because it's made by Fender, All I need to do is add some new parts then it will be just like a Fender.
> But it's still not a Fender, it's an imitation, a replica, (That's not to say that i'm likening transgendered people to replicas... Don't hit me ghstofperdition.. )
> 
> IMHO, as much as you want to call that squier a fender, it's not a fender, even if you modify it, it's still a squier, so don't try to tell me it is a Fender USA Custom. It's a fender you modified. By all means tell people that it's a good strat and it plays well. But don't tell someone that it's something that it's not. (I mean this is the most least transphobic way possible...)



Analogy is spot-on..

OK, so this transwoman is now allowed to COMPETE in the pageant. But its only because this became a news item and generated controversy. They decided to rescind that rule so they don't _look _bigoted or prejudiced against transpeople. But she will never be in the top three or anything. It's just politics. Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt I'll be watching the pageant to see the score.


----------



## tacotiklah

I see a great deal of opinion in here on what being transgender is, yet nobody is providing fact. Allow me to rectify this (I'll even lay my own personal experience with this to the side for a moment so that this can be done as close to being non-biased as I can be):

Let's start with the definition of Gender Identity Disorder:
Gender identity | Define Gender identity at Dictionary.com



> *Definition*
> 
> The psychological diagnosis gender identity disorder (GID) is used to describe a male or female that feels a strong identification with the opposite sex and experiences considerable distress because of their actual sex.


So what is all this mean? (from the same article):


> Gender identity disorder can affect children, adolescents, and adults. Individuals with gender identity disorder have strong cross-gender identification. They believe that they are, or should be, the opposite sex. They are uncomfortable with their sexual role and organs and may express a desire to alter their bodies. While not all persons with GID are labeled as transsexuals, there are those who are determined to undergo sex change procedures or have done so, and, therefore, are classified as transsexual. They often attempt to pass socially as the opposite sex. Transsexuals alter their physical appearance cosmetically and hormonally, and may eventually undergo a sex-change operation.
> Children with gender identity disorder refuse to dress and act in sex-stereotypical ways. It is important to remember that many emotionally healthy children experience fantasies about being a member of the opposite sex. The distinction between these children and gender identity disordered children is that the latter experience significant interference in functioning because of their cross-gender identification. They may become severely depressed, anxious, or socially withdrawn.


Sex and Gender are the same thing you say? Not according to medical professionals...:
Medscape: Medscape Access


> *Sex and gender*
> 
> In the English language, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably in the vernacular. However, in a medical and technically scientific sense, these words are not synonymous. Increasingly, the term gender is being accepted to define psychophysiologic processes involved in identity and social role. Therefore, it is not uncommon to hear references to "gender" by professionals from numerous disciplines, including medicine, psychology, anthropology, and social science. Gender comes from the Latin word _genus,_ meaning kind or race. It is defined by one's own identification as male, female, or intersex; gender may also be based on legal status, social interactions, public persona, personal experiences, and psychologic setting.
> Sex, from the Latin word _sexus,_ is defined by the gonads, or potential gonads, either phenotypically or genotypically. It is generally assigned at birth by external genital appearance, due to the common assumption that this represents chromosomal or internal anatomic status. When an intersex condition is noted in a newborn, one sex is often chosen with the intention of simplifying social interactions and rearing.
> A person's sex is a primary state of anatomic or physiologic parameters. A person's gender is a conclusion reached in a broad sense when individual gender identity and gender role are expressed. An often-used phrase to point out the difference, while an oversimplification, has some merit when dealing with these definitions: Sexual identity is in the perineum; gender identity is in the cerebrum. Increasingly, the more subjective sense of gender identity takes precedence in evaluating patients&#8217; needs. In instances when a discrepancy exists between sex and gender, compassion and empathy are essential to foster better understanding and an appropriate relationship between the physician and the patient. Conceptually, professionals dealing with development may fairly state that sex is biologically determined, whereas gender is culturally determined.
> Note that just as gender and sex are not interchangeable terms, neither are gender development and sexual development interchangeable. Physiologic sexual development progresses through distinct stages from the neonatal period through infancy, childhood, puberty and adolescence, and adulthood. Such physiologic change is distinguishable from gender-related behaviors during each of these stages. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions.


Also, who's to say that this contestant is not intersexed, since the article makes no mention of it. Let's read up on that shall we?:
Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia


> Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries).
> The older term for this condition, hermaphroditism, came from joining the names of a Greek god and goddess, Hermes and Aphrodite. Hermes was a god of male sexuality (among other things) and Aphrodite a goddess of female sexuality, love, and beauty.
> Although the older terms are still included in this article for reference, they have been replaced by most experts (and patients and families) because they are misleading, confusing, and insensitive. Increasingly this group of conditions is being called disorders of sex development (DSDs).
> 
> *Causes*
> 
> Intersex can be divided into four categories:
> 
> 
> 46, XX Intersex
> 46, XY Intersex
> True Gonadal Intersex
> Complex or Undetermined Intersex
> Each one is discussed in more detail below. Note: In many kids the cause of intersex may remain undetermined, even with modern diagnostic techniques.
> *46, XX Intersex*. The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male. This usually is the result of a female fetus having been exposed to excess male hormones before birth. The labia ("lips" or folds of skin of the external female genitals) fuse, and the clitoris enlarges to appear like a penis. Usually this person has a normal uterus and Fallopian tubes. This condition is also called 46, XX with virilization. It used to be called female pseudohermaphroditism. There are several possible causes:
> 
> 
> Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (the most common cause).
> Male hormones (such as testosterone) taken or encountered by the mother during pregnancy.
> Male hormone-producing tumors in the mother. These are most often ovarian tumors. Mothers who have children with 46, XX intersex should be checked unless there is another clear cause.
> Aromatase deficiency. This one may not be noticeable until puberty. Aromatase is an enzyme that normally converts male hormones to female hormones. Too much aromatase activity can lead to excess estrogen (female hormone); too little to 46, XX intersex. At puberty these XX children, who had been raised as girls, may begin to take on male characteristics.
> *46, XY Intersex.* The person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. It used to be called male pseudohermaphroditism. Forming normal male external genitals depends on the appropriate balance between male and female hormones; therefore, it requires the adequate production and function of male hormones. 46, XY intersex has many possible causes:
> 
> 
> Problems with the testes. The testes normally produce male hormones. If the testes do not form properly, it will lead to undervirilization. There are a number of possible causes for this, including XY pure gonadal dysgenesis.
> Problems with testosterone formation. Testosterone is formed through a series of steps where each requires a different enzyme. Deficiencies in any of these enzymes can result in inadequate testosterone and produce a different syndrome of 46, XY intersex. Different types of congenital adrenal hyperplasia can fall in this category.
> Problems with using testosterone. Some people have normal testes and make adequate amounts of testosterone, but still have 46, XY intersex.
> 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. People with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency lack the enzyme needed to convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). There are at least five different types of 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. Some of the babies have normal male genitalia, some have normal female genitalia, and many have something in between. Most change to external male genitalia around the time of puberty.
> Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). This is the most common cause of 46, XY intersex. Here the hormones are all normal, but the receptors to male hormones don't function properly. There are over 150 different defects that have been identified so far, and each causes a different type of AIS. AIS has also been called testicular feminization.
> 
> *True Gonadal Intersex*. Here the person must have both ovarian and testicular tissue. This might be in the same gonad (an ovotestis), or the person might have one ovary and one testis. The person may have XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes, or both. The external genitals may be ambiguous or may appear to be female or male. This condition used to be called true hermaphroditism. In most people with true gonadal intersex, the underlying cause is unknown, although in some animal studies it has been linked to exposure to common agricultural pesticides.
> *Complex or Undetermined Intersex Disorders of Sexual Development*. Many chromosome configurations other than simple 46, XX or 46, XY can result in disorders of sex development. These include 45, XO (only one X chromosome), and 47, XXY, 47, XXX -- both cases have an extra sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. These disorders do not result in an intersex condition where there is discrepancy between internal and external genitalia. However, there may be problems with sex hormone levels, overall sexual development, and altered numbers of sex chromosomes.
> *Symptoms*
> 
> The symptoms associated with intersex will depend on the underlying cause, but may include:
> 
> 
> Ambiguous genitalia at birth
> Micropenis
> Clitoromegaly (an enlarged clitoris)
> Partial labial fusion
> Apparently undescended testes (which may turn out to be ovaries) in boys
> Labial or inguinal (groin) masses -- which may turn out to be testes -- in girls
> Hypospadias (the opening of the penis is somewhere other than at the tip; in females, the urethra [urine canal] opens into the vagina)
> Otherwise unusual appearing genitalia at birth
> Electrolyte abnormalities
> Delayed or absent puberty
> Unexpected changes at puberty
> *Exams and Tests*
> 
> 
> 
> Chromosome analysis
> Hormone levels (for example, testosterone level)
> Hormone stimulation tests
> Electrolyte tests
> Specific molecular testing
> Endoscopic examination (to verify the absence or presence of a vagina or cervix)
> Ultrasound or MRI to evaluate whether internal sex organs are present (for example, a uterus)
> *Treatment*
> 
> Ideally, a team of health care professionals with expertise in intersex should work together to understand and treat the child with intersex -- and to understand, counsel, and support the entire family.
> Parents should understand controversies and changes in treating intersex in recent years. In the past, the prevailing opinion was that it was generally best to assign a gender as quickly as possible, often based on the external genitals rather than the chromosomal gender, and to instruct the parents to have no ambiguity in their minds as to the gender of the child. Prompt surgery was often recommended. Ovarian or testicular tissue from the other gender would be removed. In general, it was considered easier to reconstruct female genitalia than functioning male genitalia, so if the "correct" choice was not clear, the child was often assigned to be a girl.
> More recently, the opinion of many experts has shifted. Greater respect for the complexities of female sexual functioning has led them to conclude that suboptimal female genitalia may not be inherently better than suboptimal male genitalia, even if the reconstruction is "easier." In addition, other factors may be more important in gender satisfaction than functioning external genitals. Chromosomal, neural, hormonal, psychological, and behavioral factors can all influence gender identity.
> Many experts now urge delaying definitive surgery for as long as healthy, and ideally involving the child in the gender decision.
> Clearly, intersex is a complex issue, and its treatment has short- and long-term consequences. The best answer will depend on many factors, including the specific cause of the intersex. It is best to take the time to understand the issues before rushing into a decision. An intersex support group may help acquaint families with the latest research, and may provide a community of other families, children, and adult individuals who have faced the same issues.



Hmm..... sounds to me like the societal opinion of what a man and woman SHOULD be are pretty much b.s. when compared to what the medical community has discovered. It sounds to me that what men/women are and/or should be is rooted more in Judeo-Christian beliefs rather than in solid scientific fact.

Granted she may well have not be intersexed and could very well have been born completely anatomically male. That still doesn't make her male because gender has nothing to do with her anatomic sex. Gender is in the mind, and by all accounts she always identified as female. 
More research needs to be done on this, but what I've presented is regarded as pretty much fact among medical professionals. Sorry to burst some religious bubbles here, but the male/female dichotomy isn't as rigid or black and white as some of you have been suggesting.


----------



## rectifryer

AAAAANNNNNDDDD we're back to semantics. Its inevitable. 

If the definition of gender changes to identify with culture yet the term "sex" does not, then it simply proves a modern need to delineate the terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

The rest of your intersex argument is a RED HERRING until there info regarding the possibility that should be considered. Its plain irrelevant.

But I side with your notions that people should be more open minded. I just don't think that should be done by "beating around the bush". lol.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> I see a great deal of opinion in here on what being transgender is, yet nobody is providing fact. Allow me to rectify this (I'll even lay my own personal experience with this to the side for a moment so that this can be done as close to being non-biased as I can be):
> 
> Let's start with the definition of Gender Identity Disorder:
> Gender identity | Define Gender identity at Dictionary.com
> 
> So what is all this mean? (from the same article):
> Sex and Gender are the same thing you say? Not according to medical professionals...:
> Medscape: Medscape Access
> Also, who's to say that this contestant is not intersexed, since the article makes no mention of it. Let's read up on that shall we?:
> Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Hmm..... sounds to me like the societal opinion of what a man and woman SHOULD be are pretty much b.s. when compared to what the medical community has discovered. It sounds to me that what men/women are and/or should be is rooted more in Judeo-Christian beliefs rather than in solid scientific fact.
> 
> Granted she may well have not be intersexed and could very well have been born completely anatomically male. That still doesn't make her male because gender has nothing to do with her anatomic sex. Gender is in the mind, and by all accounts she always identified as female.
> More research needs to be done on this, but what I've presented is regarded as pretty much fact among medical professionals. Sorry to burst some religious bubbles here, but the male/female dichotomy isn't as rigid or black and white as some of you have been suggesting.



Why bring up intersexed if we don't know? From what we gather..she is a man...who looks like a woman. She COULD be intersexed..she COULD be a lot of things but what the articles pretty much state is that she's a trans woman..meaning a man, who through process resembles a woman. Who's bringing religion into this? If she was born a man..then she is a man..that's not really a religious thing, just a logic thing. A sex change doesn't mean she's a woman now..and as such a man competing in a competition originally meant for real women is seen by many as unfair and I agree. Plainly..it's a competition for women..the trans woman is not, in fact a woman.


----------



## Hollowway

matt397 said:


> Please don't tarnish the name of my beautiful beaver filled country



Is it beaver filled? I thought that was the whole issue here.


----------



## tacotiklah

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Why bring up intersexed if we don't know? From what we gather..she is a man...who looks like a woman. She COULD be intersexed..she COULD be a lot of things but what the articles pretty much state is that she's a trans woman..meaning a man, who through process resembles a woman. Who's bringing religion into this? If she was born a man..then she is a man..that's not really a religious thing, just a logic thing. A sex change doesn't mean she's a woman now..and as such a man competing in a competition originally meant for real women is seen by many as unfair and I agree. Plainly..it's a competition for women..the trans woman is not, in fact a woman.



I'm not even concerned about the competition tbvh, I'm concerned with people posting things that are encroaching into transphobia territory. Yes, refusal to accept her gender identity is considered to be disrespectuful, and depending upon the degree of the statements made, transphobic. I've commented on this before in the "guitarist of Life of Agony wants to be a woman" thread. (long before I came out about it myself, so I feel bias has no place there)
If a person has a gender of female (i.e. personal gender identification) then they need to be addressed with the pronouns of their "current" gender. To refuse to do so is disrespectful, offensive, and pretty much transphobic. 

She was born a woman, with male genitalia. I'm sorry to see that people are not reading what it is that I'm posting. Gender and sex are NOT THE SAME THING!!!!
Medical professionals have established this, so while I love you to pieces man, I'm gonna go with their professional opinion on this. 
I can understand why people are so confused by this subject. Afaik, you're all lucky to have both your gender and biological sex match when you were born. I, among others, were not so lucky. We have a male anatomy, but our gender is that of the opposite sex. In fact, gender is actually very fluid (much like sexuality) and there is a sliding trans-scale on this. The woman in the OP is the furthers to the right on that scale (transsexual). I'm not that far on it. I'm a bit further to the left of that, but enough to the right of androgyny (directly in between male and female) that living as a girl is warranted.

As far as religion goes, I'm pointing out where (and this is entirely jmo, so ignore it as you see fit) I believe people are basing their black and white views on this subject, when science is telling them it is very much a grey area.

As for intersex, I bring that up because I attempt to look at things from all angles. People can be genetically intersexed, yet have only the genitalia of one sex or the other. It is pretty rare, but I feel that is worth looking into as a viable possibility.


So please allow me to write this again for the 1235235234523 time, gender is more heavily considered than anatomic sex in the medical community, and if people can't trust the word of the entire medical and scientific community on this, then it shows that people are allowing personal bias and prejudice to take precedence before solid fact. Kinda like how some people "believe" the earth is actually flat. 


And I'm glad that she is competing. I consider it another victory towards equality between trans and cis persons.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> I'm not even concerned about the competition tbvh, I'm concerned with people posting things that are encroaching into transphobia territory. Yes, refusal to accept her gender identity is considered to be disrespectuful, and depending upon the degree of the statements made, transphobic. I've commented on this before in the "guitarist of Life of Agony wants to be a woman" thread. (long before I came out about it myself, so I feel bias has no place there)
> If a person has a gender of female (i.e. personal gender identification) then they need to be addressed with the pronouns of their "current" gender. To refuse to do so is disrespectful, offensive, and pretty much transphobic.
> 
> She was born a woman, with male genitalia. I'm sorry to see that people are not reading what it is that I'm posting. Gender and sex are NOT THE SAME THING!!!!
> Medical professionals have established this, so while I love you to pieces man, I'm gonna go with their professional opinion on this.
> I can understand why people are so confused by this subject. Afaik, you're all lucky to have both your gender and biological sex match when you were born. I, among others, were not so lucky. We have a male anatomy, but our gender is that of the opposite sex. In fact, gender is actually very fluid (much like sexuality) and there is a sliding trans-scale on this. The woman in the OP is the furthers to the right on that scale (transsexual). I'm not that far on it. I'm a bit further to the left of that, but enough to the right of androgyny (directly in between male and female) that living as a girl is warranted.
> 
> As far as religion goes, I'm pointing out where (and this is entirely jmo, so ignore it as you see fit) I believe people are basing their black and white views on this subject, when science is telling them it is very much a grey area.
> 
> As for intersex, I bring that up because I attempt to look at things from all angles. People can be genetically intersexed, yet have only the genitalia of one sex or the other. It is pretty rare, but I feel that is worth looking into as a viable possibility.
> 
> 
> So please allow me to write this again for the 1235235234523 time, gender is more heavily considered than anatomic sex in the medical community, and if people can't trust the word of the entire medical and scientific community on this, then it shows that people are allowing personal bias and prejudice to take precedence before solid fact. Kinda like how some people "believe" the earth is actually flat.
> 
> 
> And I'm glad that she is competing. I consider it another victory towards equality between trans and cis persons.



You can't force people to agree..the facts are that her genetic makeup makes her a man..despite what she feels..she's a man..NO ONE has to acknowledge her as a woman if they don't feel it comfortable because they do have an extremely valid point...considering she was born a male. NOTHING will change that. Transphobia isn't someone detailing the obvious facts. No one has to "accept" her as female because that's forcing them to go along with what's contrary to their beliefs...based on FACT. She is a biological man..with the chromosomes to back up the story..and she was born with male genitalia..for all intents and purposes we see her as a man..and as such she was not allowed to enter a competition for women who were born female. Thems the rules.

I can say I'm really a white person in a black person's body, and undergo surgeries and treatments to make myself look white..but my DNA doesn't lie and my genetic makeup will tell the truth. I'm all for people making their outsides match their insides, but not to the point of self delusion..much like when transwomen swear up and down that (after surgery) they are heterosexual women because they are "women" who are attracted to men, not bothering to let the men they're with know that they are in FACT in a homosexual relationship with a man who looks like a woman. Self deceit becomes dangerous, ESPECIALLY when it starts to push upon what other people feel based on an entire lifetime of sex/gender definition.


----------



## Powermetalbass

My previous comments may have been out of line and out of pure rage at people. but here is some food for thought.

Think about all the women you've ever been with, had a crush on, dreamt about. Can you ever be 100% sure they were a woman when they were born? did you even think to ask or look of documentation? Probably not! If there is one transgendered person (originally a man who changed to a woman), there is probably more then one. 

To all the haters, and anyone else. Are you secure enough in your sexuality to know that there is the possibility you'v slept with or fantasized about a woman that may have been a man? (cause without documentation...you never know)


----------



## rectifryer

Where are you going with that PMB? You may or may not have unintentionally done alot of things in your life. Thats still irrelevant to the original topic.


Its like this, what if you slept with a woman that used to be a man that used to be a woman that had surgery in china to make her taller so she wasn't a midget anymore but it turns out she was just born with no asshole?

Your argument as I interpret it is just talking in circles. This can go on and on and on......


----------



## The Reverend

rectifryer said:


> Where are you going with that PMB? You may or may not have unintentionally done alot of things in your life. Thats still irrelevant to the original topic.
> 
> 
> Its like this, what if you slept with a woman that used to be a man that used to be a woman that had surgery in china to make her taller so she wasn't a midget anymore but it turns out she was just born with no asshole?
> 
> Your argument as I interpret it is just talking in circles. This can go on and on and on......



He's clearly pointing towards a definition of womanhood that relies more on societal markers. If a genetic man never tells you he's transgendered, and you still get nasty with him, all the while you think he's a woman, doesn't that make her a woman?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

rectifryer said:


> Where are you going with that PMB? You may or may not have unintentionally done alot of things in your life. Thats still irrelevant to the original topic.
> 
> 
> Its like this, what if you slept with a woman that used to be a man that used to be a woman that had surgery in china to make her taller so she wasn't a midget anymore but it turns out she was just born with no asshole?
> 
> Your argument as I interpret it is just talking in circles. This can go on and on and on......



Logic saves the day




The Reverend said:


> He's clearly pointing towards a definition of womanhood that relies more on societal markers. If a genetic man never tells you he's transgendered, and you still get nasty with him, all the while you think he's a woman, doesn't that make her a woman?


No...it means you just had sex with a man..that's what that means

If you have sex with a 16 year old under the impression that she was 20..does that make her legal age?


----------



## The Reverend

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> No...it means you just had sex with a man..that's what that means
> 
> If you have sex with a 16 year old under the impression that she was 20..does that make her legal age?



To your perceptions at the time... yes.

I'm not arguing that transgendered people are in a purely technical sense men or women. I'm saying that for all intents and purposes, somebody truly does become their 'preferred' gender by inhabiting that role, especially when they've undergone surgery. Are you incapable of seeing that point, or just unwilling?


----------



## flint757

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> You can't force people to agree..the facts are that her genetic makeup makes her a man..despite what she feels..she's a man..NO ONE has to acknowledge her as a woman if they don't feel it comfortable because they do have an extremely valid point...considering she was born a male. NOTHING will change that. Transphobia isn't someone detailing the obvious facts. No one has to "accept" her as female because that's forcing them to go along with what's contrary to their beliefs...based on FACT. She is a biological man..with the chromosomes to back up the story..and she was born with male genitalia..for all intents and purposes we see her as a man..and as such she was not allowed to enter a competition for women who were born female. Thems the rules.
> 
> I can say I'm really a white person in a black person's body, and undergo surgeries and treatments to make myself look white..but my DNA doesn't lie and my genetic makeup will tell the truth. I'm all for people making their outsides match their insides, but not to the point of self delusion..much like when transwomen swear up and down that (after surgery) they are heterosexual women because they are "women" who are attracted to men, not bothering to let the men they're with know that they are in FACT in a homosexual relationship with a man who looks like a woman. Self deceit becomes dangerous, ESPECIALLY when it starts to push upon what other people feel based on an entire lifetime of sex/gender definition.



I agree with the second part. There should be full disclosure. ]

For the first part honestly if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm going to call it a duck. She (the OT transexual) "looks" like a woman and if I saw her on the street would be none the wiser. However, if you could tell then I suppose it is within your right to be an ass although I'd frown upon it (but hey I'm a nice guy). Either way if I can't tell I'm not asking. Good reason to honestly. There are plenty of natural women out there with male feature and you'd be a huge dick to point that out to them, if you can't look at it from the tran side then you should at least look at it from the side of the feminine men and masculine women (in societal terms) who could in fact be in their "correct" gender.



Powermetalbass said:


> My previous comments may have been out of line and out of pure rage at people. but here is some food for thought.
> 
> Think about all the women you've ever been with, had a crush on, dreamt about. Can you ever be 100% sure they were a woman when they were born? did you even think to ask or look of documentation? Probably not! If there is one transgendered person (originally a man who changed to a woman), there is probably more then one.
> 
> To all the haters, and anyone else. Are you secure enough in your sexuality to know that there is the possibility you'v slept with or fantasized about a woman that may have been a man? (cause without documentation...you never know)



I get the point...

The point is unless you get a full work up you wouldn't necessarily know. I don't know the genetic makeup of any of my ex's and that was his point (although I'm going to assume they were all female in body and genetics). All this talk about genetics sounds more like people expecting trans people to were golden stars.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

The Reverend said:


> To your perceptions at the time... yes.
> 
> I'm not arguing that transgendered people are in a purely technical sense men or women. I'm saying that for all intents and purposes, somebody truly does become their 'preferred' gender by inhabiting that role, especially when they've undergone surgery. Are you incapable of seeing that point, or just unwilling?



..what would the law say? The sex offender registry is full of people who "thought she was legal"...it doesn't matter what you THINK..it matters what is. I'd rather deal with reality, not just what I kinda-sorta believe at the time. Same as if I were with a man who used to be a woman..then I would have had sex with a woman..not a man because that's what happened.




flint757 said:


> I agree with the second part. There should be full disclosure. ]
> 
> For the first part honestly if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm going to call it a duck. She (the OT transexual) "looks" like a woman and if I saw her on the street would be none the wiser. However, if you could tell then I suppose it is within your right to be an ass although I'd frown upon it (but hey I'm a nice guy). Either way if I can't tell I'm not asking. Good reason to honestly. There are plenty of natural women out there with male feature and you'd be a huge dick to point that out to them, if you can't look at it from the tran side then you should at least look at it from the side of the feminine men and masculine women (in societal terms) who could in fact be in their "correct" gender.



Well obviously "looks like quacks like" clearly doesn't apply for many things..this being one..because it's not a duck..despite it's best efforts to look like all the other ducks. As for whether or not to refer to her as female, if that's what she wants to be called then sure..I can call her that but of course I know full well she isn't. I'm more concerned with the sex of a person because that's pretty definite except in some cases. She was born a man..therefore her sex is male..she's a man. Her "gender" may be female but gender is always a touchy subject that can go multiple ways but a persons sex is pretty concrete (except in some cases obviously). I wouldn't go out of my way to tell a trans person they aren't the gender they think they are, however I'm certainly not going to pretend that it's "whatever they want to be" because that's not the case based on pure logic. If you were born a man, it doesn't matter what you do to your appearance..you're a man. Much like the people who undergo procedures and surgeries to resemble animals, monsters, other races, etc..at the end of it all they are STILL what they were when they were born and surgery doesn't change that and it would be foolish to pretend that a surgery completely changes someone's genetic makeup.


----------



## bhakan

So just to start off, I mean no offense in anything I say, so if anyone considers something I say offensive, its due to bad word choice, not bad intentions


ghstofperdition said:


> gender is more heavily considered than anatomic sex in the medical community


Maybe I missed this in your articles, but where does it say one is considered more important than the other. As you say, they are different terms, and if a doctor is performing a surgery on a woman who feels like a man, he still has to avoid cutting into the ovaries, because wanting to not have ovaries will not make them magically disappear, so in that case sex is more important, but from a psychological perspective, gender is more important. The terms are apples and oranges, as you have said, so neither can be more important.

The gender vs. sex is what this argument is about. Nobody is saying that she doesn't feel like a woman (so they are not saying her gender is not female) but they are saying her sex is still, to a degree, male.


----------



## tacotiklah

bhakan said:


> Maybe I missed this in your articles, but where does it say one is considered more important than the other. As you say, they are different terms, and if a doctor is performing a surgery on a woman who feels like a man, he still has to avoid cutting into the ovaries, because wanting to not have ovaries will not make them magically disappear, so in that case sex is more important, but from a psychological perspective, gender is more important. The terms are apples and oranges, as you have said, so neither can be more important.



Okay, I concede that I have nothing to back this, since this statement was made by my Psychology professor in class, and I have no record of it. I will state (and this is jmo, since I have nothing to prove it at this time) that gender or a sense of gender has a larger impact on a person's life because it is the definition of their very being. A person's sex has no immediate life/death impact on them (discounting things like cancer) and unless you just reach down and grab whatever was there Crocodile Dundee-style, you'd never know what it truly was to begin with. (tbvh, I think it's this fear of the unknown that has people so worked up on the issue. They feel like they have to admit to themselves that they got a boner over someone that has a penis, so they think they're gay now and that doesn't sit well with them. It forces people to question themselves and that's the last thing a lot of people want to do.)

Gender on the other hand, it's everything about you. It's your residual self image, it's how the world perceives you, it is a determining factor of who you are and what you can do/be in life. It determines your interactions with society and is a factor in determining your place within it. People will know you for the rest of your life by your gender as it's right there in their face. It's hard to not see a person's gender. I believe that transpeople have it the hardest out of the whole LGBT community because it's far too easy to hide being bi, and while hard, you can hide being gay/lesbian from people. But trans? It's right there in people's faces all the time. You can't hide that from people.


(semi-offtopic, but still somewhat on topic since I believe the woman in the OP had similar intentions regarding this contest)
I supposed I made the mistake of being far too open about my sex/gender with others (much like the woman in the OP), but I did so because 1.) I don't like lying to people. I'm 100% up front with others because I'd expect the same in return and 2.) I had hoped that by being visible, it could help improve things for people like me and cispeople can see that we're not the crazy freaks that movies (like Silence of the Lambs) and society has painted us to be. People get so hung up on what's between a person's legs, who they sleep with, or the pigmentation color of their skin that they forget to look into what's in a person heart, mind and soul. Those should be the only things that ever matter to a person. Not age, gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, or disability.


----------



## Jakke

But Buffalo Bill is not transsexual, they even remark so in the movie...

I'm a Hannibal purist


----------



## tacotiklah

Jakke said:


> But Buffalo Bill is not transsexual, they even remark so in the movie...
> 
> I'm a Hannibal purist




I'm not a transsexual either. (look up the work transgenderist. You'll find that's me to the letter) Doesn't stop people from reminding me that I'm a freak on a daily basis though, nor does it stop people from relegating me and the woman in the OP from being a human being to a something less than that because of what we may or may not have in our pants.

As Necris has astutely pointed out (and I really must +rep him for this), this woman had gone from a human being with struggles of her own to being a sex object in this thread. It's humiliating and degrading. It does nothing but bolster my belief that another root cause of the transphobic posting I've seen in here is rooted largely in misogyny. That mtf transgenders are heretics for "relinquishing" their male status which is somehow seen as being higher than female. How dare we consort with the enemy? We should be receiving the sandwiches, not making them... 

Here's a thought....
Let go and let God/Buddah/Allah/Science/Christopher Hitchens/Whatever you believe or don't believe in...
Meaning let people live their lives as they see fit provided they don't infringe on the lives of others. I have the right to do as I please with my own body, as does the woman in the OP. She has the right to compete as a woman because she is a woman. As in when I look at her picture I see a woman. That's good enough for me. She's not robbing a bank, she's not committing heinous crimes, she just wants to look pretty and be recognized for her beauty. How the hell can this possibly be wrong? Because you might get a stiffy over it? That's your problem for not having control over you dick, and that is not her fault.


----------



## Jakke

I wouldn't even dream to remark about your sexuality, I can just comment on Buffalo Bill

My sentiment is basically this, she has male genetics, that makes her a male according to this pageant. They are a private competition, they can set up whatever rules they like. They don't have to be "fair", because they are their rules. Just, end of story. It has nothing to do with misogeny or transfobia, it's about respecting the pageants right to govern itself as a private enterprise.

However, now that this issue has been raised, hopefully the rules will change.


----------



## tacotiklah

Jakke said:


> I wouldn't even dream to remark about your sexuality, I can just comment on Buffalo Bill
> 
> My sentiment is basically this, she has male genetics, that makes her a male according to this pageant. They are a private competition, they can set up whatever rules they like. They don't have to be "fair", because they are their rules. Just, end of story.



While I disagree with the rules, you're correct. It IS a private pageant and they have the right to make the rules. I never have, nor will I ever condone someone "sneaking" into contests like this. As I've said before, petition the rules first and when the rules are changed, THEN compete. But I see no problem with her competing. Just like if it came to things like dating, I NEVER will condone a transgendered person hiding that part of them from the person they are intimate with, Full disclosure is warranted in both cases and I see them as similar mindsets; the need to deceive. I can totally understand why she did what she did, but deception is despicable to me, and trust me when I say I had a look of disgust on my face when I saw that she entered without saying anything. Regardless of what may happen, you gotta come clean about yourself. 

By all means, change injustice whenever you see it, but make sure those changes are just and moral in and of themselves.



xvultures said:


> You mean 100% freak.
> 
> Scary part is he had a dick, then chopped it off and tried to make himself into a girl. But he will *never* be a real woman. So that is the scary part.



You know, they say that those who protest it the most, usually do so because that's what they are and are living in self-denial. It was true of me, so yeah.... 

(btw, in case you didn't notice, by calling her 100% freak, you just by default called me one too right? Yeah that's right, I'm a mtf transgender myself. Thanks for proving that society still sees us as something less than human... )


----------



## Jakke

ghstofperdition said:


> While I disagree with the rules, you're correct. It IS a private pageant and they have the right to make the rules. I never have, nor will I ever condone someone "sneaking" into contests like this. As I've said before, petition the rules first and when the rules are changed, THEN compete. But I see no problem with her competing. Just like if it came to things like dating, I NEVER will condone a transgendered person hiding that part of them from the person they are intimate with, Full disclosure is warranted in both cases and I see them as similar mindsets; the need to deceive. I can totally understand why she did what she did, but deception is despicable to me, and trust me when I say I had a look of disgust on my face when I saw that she entered without saying anything. Regardless of what may happen, you gotta come clean about yourself.
> 
> By all means, change injustice whenever you see it, but make sure those changes are just and moral in and of themselves.



Good to see we're on the same page

I say that if they change the rules, she IS female according to their rules, and has every right to compete.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

ghstofperdition said:


> Just like if it came to things like dating, I NEVER will condone a transgendered person hiding that part of them from the person they are intimate with, Full disclosure is warranted in both cases and I see them as similar mindsets; the need to deceive.



I don't mean to put you on the spot, but earlier in this thread you said that she is 100% female. If that's the case, then there is no deception at play.. so, you either feel that there's something to come clean about, or that she's 100% female - I don't think it can be both.


----------



## Ben.Last

This is such a touchy subject. 

My thoughts (I was actually just discussing this yesterday with a girl I'm starting to get involved with that used to date a woman who is now ftm transgendered):

First, so often, we tie in respect to not finding something weird. We can respect something but still find it weird. So, the simple fact that people tend to not always know how to react to transgendered individuals does not mean that they do not have respect for them.

In this particular case, she did not act appropriately, in my opinion. She should have, as has been stated, instead, tried to get the rules changed first. HOWEVER, were the rules, in the end, not changed, I would not, by any means, have considered that an "injustice." Everything cannot be all inclusive, all the time. That's a ridiculous ideal that only exists in a ridiculous fairy tale land.

In general, my opinion is that people should be allowed to live their lives as they please as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. That does not, however, mean that, if an individual or group of individuals want an exclusive group/event/etc, that they are enacting an injustice upon those who are not included.


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't mean to put you on the spot, but earlier in this thread you said that she is 100% female. If that's the case, then there is no deception at play.. so, you either feel that there's something to come clean about, or that she's 100% female - I don't think it can be both.



To put what she means in perspective she meant (I think) that she is a woman, but since they specified in the rules (naturally born) she should have followed by them. And in the bedroom sense I think she was referring to the fact that it is necessary to have full disclosure just like some people not liking people who get around too much or haven't been around at all or a million other personal potentially unrelated info when someone is about to have sex. 

That is how I take it, either way we are once again splitting hairs...
In general I'm probably the most tolerant person I know which makes conversing about touchy subjects hard even in person with others. So that being said I'm amazed this thread hasn't "completely" derailed even though it has a couple times...


----------



## tacotiklah

flint757 said:


> To put what she means in perspective she meant (I think) that she is a woman, but since they specified in the rules (naturally born) she should have followed by them. And in the bedroom sense I think she was referring to the fact that it is necessary to have full disclosure just like some people not liking people who get around too much or haven't been around at all or a million other personal potentially unrelated info when someone is about to have sex.
> 
> That is how I take it, either way we are once again splitting hairs...
> In general I'm probably the most tolerant person I know which makes conversing about touchy subjects hard even in person with others. So that being said I'm amazed this thread hasn't "completely" derailed even though it has a couple times...




This. I do see her as 100% female, but as this thread has shown, not everyone else does. I see hiding that fact and not giving people the chance to decide for themselves on how to react to it as wrong. Whether or not I agree with said reaction is another matter altogether, but I am still for people having the ability to decide things for themselves.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Actually, you said you would NEVER condone a transgender hiding their secret in an intimate setting. If a given individual is 100% female or male, then they are 100% female or male and there is no actual issue that requires disclosure, correct? I understand your response, but if I am dedicated to a particular conviction, I am in no way apologetic about it, and will not feel the need to explain my position as a general rule. I assumed the same could be said for anybody who is 100% certain of something.

Don't misunderstand me - I have no issue with transgenders, or pretty much anybody, so long as they are not hurting anybody, or going out of their way to make it known to as many people as possible what they are all about. The same goes for pretty much anything though... Like, I'm pretty much straight edge (won't even take tylenol), but this is literally the first time I've ever mentioned it. On the other hand, a lot of people who are straight edge are so into using it as an identity cruch that they even paint x's on their hands So that everybody else can see what decisions they've made.

Not an attempt to derail, I'm just pointing out that I'm not intolerant, before I'm slumped into that category.


----------



## tacotiklah

I don't think you're intolerant at all. If any issue were to be taken with your post, it would be with nitpicking.  

The truth is that by not saying something to begin with, she puts herself at great risk of verbal, emotional, and yes, even physical harm. If she did what I know that a LOT of transgenders have done and say nothing, upon discovery, said b/f goes bobby brown on her. Granted, there are those that would do this anyways, but I feel even more sympathy for those that were honest and still got hurt. That's not to say that I become all honey-badger like when I see transwomen that don't disclose get hurt, but the fact is that honesty still remains the best policy.

And again, while *I* view her as 100% female, many do not share that same sentiment. Tbvh, I don't care what a person's gender is, if they are a good, responsible person at heart and can rock my world in the sack, they are the person for me. But to other people (again reading this thread will give you a good idea of this) Sex and Gender are rigidly indivisible and it's highly important to them to know if you don't fit into their views of what gender should be.

But for me, I care not. Just be an unrelated human adult that isn't a complete douchebag/loser and I'll probably give you a chance.


----------



## Don Vito

She is being interviewed on ABC right now(US news network).

Seems to be going well.


----------



## Nimgoble

There are a lot of people in this thread railing on about how the rules are clear and that the trans-woman in question is really a male because she was born with a penis. The ignorance of these statements is mildly frustrating, especially due to some of the phrasing("Chromosomes don't lie"? Oh, really?).

The rules of the competition state that a contestant must be born female to participate. To a lot of people, this cut and dry: If it was born with a penis, then it's a biological male. If it was born with a vagina, then it's a biological female. A lot of people here then go on to make the assumption that, since this trans-woman had a penis when they were born, their chromosomes must be XY. To me, this indicates that these people think that your genitalia is an absolutely accurate indication of what chromosomes you have.

You're wrong. XX Male Syndrome Swyer's Syndrome(XY Female)

In light of this, no one here can say that the trans-woman in question is not a sufferer of XX Male Syndrome. It's entirely possible that she isn't, but the article fails to mention whether she was tested. Furthermore, the pageant's rule in question is phrased rather poorly. In my opinion, if you're going to have a competition with a rule based on a characteristic of which our body of knowledge is incomplete, you should try to keep up with the research on said characteristic. 

Sex is not as black and white as people would like to think it is. There is no guarantee that the chromosomes of the person that you're (eye)fucking/lusting after/loving/judging match their genitalia. They may not even be XX/XY(Turner Syndrome , Klinefelter's syndrome, etc).


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> There are a lot of people in this thread railing on about how the rules are clear and that the trans-woman in question is really a male because she was born with a penis. The ignorance of these statements is mildly frustrating, especially due to some of the phrasing("Chromosomes don't lie"? Oh, really?).
> 
> The rules of the competition state that a contestant must be born female to participate. To a lot of people, this cut and dry: If it was born with a penis, then it's a biological male. If it was born with a vagina, then it's a biological female. A lot of people here then go on to make the assumption that, since this trans-woman had a penis when they were born, their chromosomes must be XY. To me, this indicates that these people think that your genitalia is an absolutely accurate indication of what chromosomes you have.
> 
> You're wrong. XX Male Syndrome Swyer's Syndrome(XY Female)
> 
> In light of this, no one here can say that the trans-woman in question is not a sufferer of XX Male Syndrome. It's entirely possible that she isn't, but the article fails to mention whether she was tested. Furthermore, the pageant's rule in question is phrased rather poorly. In my opinion, if you're going to have a competition with a rule based on a characteristic of which our body of knowledge is incomplete, you should try to keep up with the research on said characteristic.
> 
> Sex is not as black and white as people would like to think it is. There is no guarantee that the chromosomes of the person that you're (eye)fucking/lusting after/loving/judging match their genitalia.



So you're going on a campaign about an issue she might not even have? For all we know she's a biological man...but since the article says so we have no way of knowing for sure..but chances are she is a biological man...right. No one can say the trans-woman in question IS a sufferer of XX Male Syndrome..but until we know for sure let's not just start adding things. From the multiple articles I read she's a biological man..and if so then she's still a man, no point in throwing in factors that no one has reported on as it just seems silly and as a biological man, it's unfair for her to enter a competition for biological women..seems sensible to me.


----------



## Jakke

Nimgoble said:


> There are a lot of people in this thread railing on about how the rules are clear and that the trans-woman in question is really a male because she was born with a penis. The ignorance of these statements is mildly frustrating, especially due to some of the phrasing("Chromosomes don't lie"? Oh, really?).
> 
> The rules of the competition state that a contestant must be born female to participate. To a lot of people, this cut and dry: If it was born with a penis, then it's a biological male. If it was born with a vagina, then it's a biological female. A lot of people here then go on to make the assumption that, since this trans-woman had a penis when they were born, their chromosomes must be XY. To me, this indicates that these people think that your genitalia is an absolutely accurate indication of what chromosomes you have.
> 
> You're wrong. XX Male Syndrome Swyer's Syndrome(XY Female)
> 
> In light of this, no one here can say that the trans-woman in question is not a sufferer of XX Male Syndrome. It's entirely possible that she isn't, but the article fails to mention whether she was tested. Furthermore, the pageant's rule in question is phrased rather poorly. In my opinion, if you're going to have a competition with a rule based on a characteristic of which our body of knowledge is incomplete, you should try to keep up with the research on said characteristic.
> 
> Sex is not as black and white as people would like to think it is. There is no guarantee that the chromosomes of the person that you're (eye)fucking/lusting after/loving/judging match their genitalia. They may not even be XX/XY(Turner Syndrome , Klinefelter's syndrome, etc).





A very valid point, and I am not sure as to wheather I am one of those who "rails on about rules and chromosomes". In these instances it is however helpful to ponder Occam's razor. What is more likely; that she has an extremely rare genetic disorder that affects about 5 in 100 000 children, or that she was born a full-functioning male? 
There is reason why doctor House can't solve the case until the very end, he follows Occam's razor and tests for all the more common fitting diseases first. The odds of this disorder is so small that it is not relayably born a child with this disorder every year in the US. Compare that with the rate of autism, which is about 1/100.


----------



## Nimgoble

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> So you're going on a campaign about an issue she might not even have? For all we know she's a biological man...but since the article says so we have no way of knowing for sure..but chances are she is a biological man...right. No one can say the trans-woman in question IS a sufferer of XX Male Syndrome..but until we know for sure let's not just start adding things. From the multiple articles I read she's a biological man..and if so then she's still a man, no point in throwing in factors that no one has reported on as it just seems silly and as a biological man, it's unfair for her to enter a competition for biological women..seems sensible to me.



The uncertainty is the point. You (and others) have carried on about how the contestant is a biological man. True, it's stated in the article. But, as you've also shown, assuming a person's chromosomes by their natural-born genitalia is a common mistake. I wouldn't put it passed the the news sources to make this mistake. So, you're all basing your judgments on presumptions. 

Any my bringing up these disorders was also to address your statement: "chromosomes don't lie".

And I see that you didn't address my critique of the rule. You say that she's a "biological man" like that automatically disqualifies her from the contest. The rule, as I read it, states that a contestant has to be a "natural-born female". What, exactly, is that? Is it referring to genitalia? How about the chromosomes? Or something else found in this list? Does this mean that an XY Female can enter the contest, with the outward appearance of a female, but the chromosomes of a male? How about an XX Male, who looks like a man, but is a genetic female?




Jakke said:


> A very valid point, and I am not sure as to wheather I am one of those who "rails on about rules and chromosomes". In these instances it is however helpful to ponder Occam's razor. What is more likely; that she has an extremely rare genetic disorder that affects about 5 in 100 000 children, or that she was born a full-functioning male?
> There is reason why doctor House can't solve the case until the very end, he follows Occam's razor and tests for all the more common fitting diseases first. The odds of this disorder is so small that it is not relayably born a child with this disorder every year in the US. Compare that with the rate of autism, which is about 1/100.



No needs for Occam's Razor. We could just reserve judgement until the facts are revealed. And the fact that this is a rare disorder doesn't mean that it shouldn't be investigated. In House, he works his way down the list of suspects ending in the least-likely possibility, until he finds the answer. That's fine. The thing is: no one here has found the answer. Everyone is interpreting the article's statement to mean that the lady in question is actually a male with XY chromosomes. The phrasing is ambiguous.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> The uncertainty is the point. You (and others) have carried on about how the contestant is a biological man. True, it's stated in the article. But, as you've also shown, assuming a person's chromosomes by their natural-born genitalia is a common mistake. I wouldn't put it passed the the news sources to make this mistake. So, you're all basing your judgments on presumptions.
> 
> And I see that you didn't address my critique of the rule. You say that she's a "biological man" like that automatically disqualifies her from the contest. The rule, as I read it, states that a contestant has to be a "natural-born female". What, exactly, is that? Is it referring to genitalia? How about the chromosomes? Or something else found in this list? Does this mean that an XY Female can enter the contest, with the outward appearance of a female, but the chromosomes of a male? How about an XX Male, who looks like a man, but is a genetic female?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No needs for Occam's Razor. We could just reserve judgement until the facts are revealed. And the fact that this is a rare disorder doesn't mean that it shouldn't be investigated. In House, he works his way down the list of suspects ending in the least-likely possibility, until he finds the answer. That's fine. The thing is: no one here has found the answer. Everyone is interpreting the article's statement to mean that the lady in question is actually a male with XY chromosomes. The phrasing is ambiguous.



Since I've said before that with some exception..meaning genetic defect and whatnot..that you are what you are..it doesn't rule out men with XY chromosomes..but since we don't know she has that problem let's not go throwing "what if" scenarios in that don't seem to be apparent. As for what a "natural born female" is..well I'd think that'd be pretty obvious unless they mean some bizarre definition I, and anyone else, would assume it to mean a female who was born female..not a male who resembles a female. We can only interpret what it says..now if she does have a genetic condition then that's different and up for it's own task of philosophy and ideas..but no one has even brought that as a possibility and the many articles I've read on it have no mention of it..SO if she is a biological man then she shouldn't be able to enter a contest for biological women. When we take the "what if" scenarios out, it's pretty black and white, imo.


----------



## Jakke

Nimgoble said:


> No needs for Occam's Razor. We could just reserve judgement until the facts are revealed. And the fact that this is a rare disorder doesn't mean that it shouldn't be investigated. In House, he works his way down the list of suspects ending in the least-likely possibility, until he finds the answer. That's fine. The thing is: no one here has found the answer. Everyone is interpreting the article's statement to mean that the lady in question is actually a male with XY chromosomes. The phrasing is ambiguous.



Yeah, sure we can say that nothing is off the table. But an unlikely explanation does not warrant the same time spent as the more likely. If she has this disorder, fine, but until then we cannot treat this as an as likely explanation as the mainstream one.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter

This would be so much easier if we had the "what if machine" from Futurama.


----------



## Jakke

Gothic Headhunter said:


> This would be so much easier if we had the "what if machine" from Futurama.



No need, Nimgoble's already ours


----------



## Nimgoble

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Since I've said before that with some exception..meaning genetic defect and whatnot..that you are what you are..it doesn't rule out men with XY chromosomes..but since we don't know she has that problem let's not go throwing "what if" scenarios in that don't seem to be apparent.



Drakkar, due to the ambiguity of the phrase "biological male", this entire scenario is a "what if". You're just leaning towards one possibility. My point stands: There isn't enough information to be slinging around the kind of judgments you are making.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> As for what a "natural born female" is..well I'd think that'd be pretty obvious unless they mean some bizarre definition I, and anyone else, would assume it to mean a female who was born female..not a male who resembles a female.



That's the problem: You're isolating one characteristic of females and then claiming that is THE determining factor. And you must not have understood my question. The XY Female/XX Male is born with the outward appearance(genitalia, etc) of one sex and the chromosomes of another. So, which sex is it? And should they be allowed to enter in to contest like this one?



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> We can only interpret what it says..now if she does have a genetic condition then that's different and up for it's own task of philosophy and ideas..but no one has even brought that as a possibility and the many articles I've read on it have no mention of it..SO if she is a biological man then she shouldn't be able to enter a contest for biological women. When we take the "what if" scenarios out, it's pretty black and white, imo.



That's your problem(as well as that of others): You're ignoring legitimate possibilities because you want a black and white answer. That's as sloppy as the phrasing of the rule, itself. And as for the rule: We don't have to interpret it, nor should we have to. We can (and should) take it as it is written. And it stipulates that a "naturally born female" may participate. If they didn't want these kind of problems, they should have been clear on what, exactly, a "naturally born female" is.



Jakke said:


> Yeah, sure we can say that nothing is off the table. But an unlikely explanation does not warrant the same time spent as the more likely. If she has this disorder, fine, but until then we cannot treat this as an as likely explanation as the mainstream one.



The tone of this thread isn't one of speculation. You guys are talking like you actually know all of the facts needed to make the statements you are making. There's an air of certainty to this thread that is unwarranted, in my opinion. To dispel that, I've offered an alternative possibility to the claims that the trans-woman in question is an actual XY Male that has had gender-reassignment surgery and, therefore, unqualified to be competing in this competition.

I haven't even really gone in to WHAT determines a person's sex. As soon as Drakkar answers my above question(s)(most likely claiming it to be the chromosomes), I'll crack that nut.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter

To me, a "naturaly born female" is a person who was concived through intercourse (not IVF) and was born with XX chromosomes(sp). Doesn't matter if she's a hermaphrodite, XX is female. Again, this is my interpretation of the rule, and I'm sure many people will have different interpretations, so I think they need to make the rules more clear.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> Drakkar, due to the ambiguity of the phrase "biological male", this entire scenario is a "what if". You're just leaning towards one possibility. My point stands: There isn't enough information to be slinging around the kind of judgments you are making.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem: You're isolating one characteristic of females and then claiming that is THE determining factor. And you must not have understood my question. The XY Female/XX Male is born with the outward appearance(genitalia, etc) of one sex and the chromosomes of another. So, which sex is it? And should they be allowed to enter in to contest like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> That's your problem(as well as that of others): You're ignoring legitimate possibilities because you want a black and white answer. That's as sloppy as the phrasing of the rule, itself. And as for the rule: We don't have to interpret it, nor should we have to. We can (and should) take it as it is written. And it stipulates that a "naturally born female" may participate. If they didn't want these kind of problems, they should have been clear on what, exactly, a "naturally born female" is.
> 
> 
> 
> The tone of this thread isn't one of speculation. You guys are talking like you actually know all of the facts needed to make the statements you are making. There's an air of certainty to this thread that is unwarranted, in my opinion. To dispel that, I've offered an alternative possibility to the claims that the trans-woman in question is an actual XY Male that has had gender-reassignment surgery and, therefore, unqualified to be competing in this competition.
> 
> I haven't even really gone in to WHAT determines a person's sex. As soon as Drakkar answers my above question(s)(most likely claiming it to be the chromosomes), I'll crack that nut.



I'm still confused as to why you think your reasoning factors into this situation. Have you seen somewhere that the trans-woman has a genetic issue like the one you stated? My point is if she doesn't, which is possible but not likely, then the rules are pretty black and white. We can offer all types of possibilities..what if she has a genetic disorder..what if she's one of those fish who can change sexes, what if aliens dropped from the sky and changed her..who knows? But as the information is given she's a trans-woman, a man who through medical procedure now resembles a woman, and as such it's unfair for her to compete in a competition for women..who were born women, body, chromosomes, genitals and all matching for the female sex. A bunch of "what if there were someone who was..." has nothing to do with the situation since that hasn't been put in as fact, so until you provide proof that she has something like that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go down that path. As the info stands, she's trans..usually meaning a man who now resembles a woman..so she's still a man..men can't enter pageants for women as it would be just as unfair as a biological woman trying to beat trans women in a trans competition.


----------



## Jakke

As long as we are speculating, has anyone considered this:

Let's say she had this disorder, and then underwent surgery to rectify it. Wouldn't she mention that? That if anything could have allowed her to compete, then she really could have pertitioned to be considered born as a woman. Just the fact that she did not do that speaks to me as she were in fact born as a man.


----------



## flint757

I think the idea that it isn't black and white is simply the fact that chromosomes aren't as bulletproof as many are saying and not everyone gets tested at birth anyway. Plus "naturally born" also sounds a little like non C section or no drug birth or no IVF or a water birth (all those would be unfair IMO) or something not just 100% female. It doesn't really matter, the rule got changed and I'm sure she is happy.

Has anyone seen that house episode about a 16 yr old girl who has weird health problems and had slept with her father (manager) and a few others and then they find out that she was technically a dude, but her genitalia hadn't fully grown or descended. That rocked their world too.

I can agree with one thing though. While yes the obvious and most simple choice is the most likely it does seem the naysayers do wish for this to be black and white. Adn honestly I think the point of bringing up genetic deficiencies and other weird disorders doesn't necessarily even have to apply to this person to prove a point. The fact that DNA can lie is sufficient enough to prove that it really isn't the best determinant and neither is anything else really. You could say no dick, but not all males are born with one, you could say fertile, but not all women are fertile, you could say boobs but some women are flat chested, and lastly you could say DNA, but plenty of disorders exist to make that unreliable as well. If someone thought like a female, felt like a female and was born without a visible dick (and was unaware) you'd be a major asshole if you claimed she was a dude IMO. So what's my point....it isn't black and white.


----------



## Nimgoble

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I'm still confused as to why you think your reasoning factors into this situation. Have you seen somewhere that the trans-woman has a genetic issue like the one you stated? My point is if she doesn't, which is possible but not likely, then the rules are pretty black and white. We can offer all types of possibilities..what if she has a genetic disorder..what if she's one of those fish who can change sexes, what if aliens dropped from the sky and changed her..who knows? But as the information is given she's a trans-woman, a man who through medical procedure now resembles a woman, and as such it's unfair for her to compete in a competition for women..who were born women, body, chromosomes, genitals and all matching for the female sex. A bunch of "what if there were someone who was..." has nothing to do with the situation since that hasn't been put in as fact, so until you provide proof that she has something like that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go down that path. As the info stands, she's trans..usually meaning a man who now resembles a woman..so she's still a man..men can't enter pageants for women as it would be just as unfair as a biological woman trying to beat trans women in a trans competition.



The possibilities I've listed aren't on the alien-level, so please don't try to discredit them that way. And I've explained that there is a possibility that the articles are making the same mistake that you have made: assuming that your genitalia absolutely reflects your chromosomes. It seems to be a common mistake. As such, I think the possibility that said trans woman was born an XX male should be explored before any judgments are made by anyone.

It make sense to go down this path if the core issue that I'm trying to get at is: what determines what sex a person is? The answer, if we're being completely honest, is: There isn't any one determining factor. Chromosomes don't absolutely reflect the body of a person. Genitalia doesn't necessarily reflect the person's chromosomes. And then there's Gender Identity. Why should genitalia and chromosomes take precedence over whatever your brain identifies as?

Also, who is to say that none of the other contestants aren't XY Females? Is the competition testing each and every candidate, or is the presence of a vagina at birth enough? Does that mean that your sex is based on your genitalia at birth? Which would mean that your sex is based on your genitalia. Which would then mean that the trans-woman is now, in fact, a woman. Not a man with the body of a woman.

Or what if some of these other contestants display mental characteristics of a male? What if these male characteristics outweigh the female characteristics? Should they be allowed to participate?

These questions practically render the phrase "naturally born female" meaningless. What is a female? What percentage of said person has to be female? How are the individual characteristics that go in to this determination weighed?

Or, how about we just skip the shit and treat people as whatever sex they want to be? The fact that this woman was born with a penis should not disqualify her from the title she won in a contest of "Who Is The Prettiest Feminine Person?". She's still feminine and she still registered on whatever scale these people were judging with. It's not like she showed up to a knife fight with a gun. She beat these people fair and square.




Jakke said:


> As long as we are speculating, has anyone considered this:
> 
> Let's say she had this disorder, and then underwent surgery to rectify it. Wouldn't she mention that? That if anything could have allowed her to compete, then she really could have pertitioned to be considered born as a woman. Just the fact that she did not do that speaks to me as she were in fact born as a man.



I have and its making the assumption that she was tested before the transition(or since). It may be undiagnosed. She may not even know that disorder exists. *shrug* You're right, it could mean that she has XY chromosomes, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Randy

flint757 said:


> Has anyone seen that house episode about a 16 yr old girl who has weird health problems and had slept with her father (manager) and a few others and then they find out that she was technically a dude, but her genitalia hadn't fully grown or descended. That rocked their world too.



Cameron Richardson. Mmmm.


----------



## tacotiklah

After re-reading through all of this and in light of more recent news, I've come to a conclusion; none of this going back and forth is really relevant anymore. The rules have been changed and she is allowed to compete and will be doing so. So at this point (to paraphrase family guy) it's like sex with Kobe Bryant, you can kick and scream about it all you want, but in the end, it's just gonna happen. 

Despite my opinions (however right/wrong they may be) this is an issue that needs addressing and this is a touchy subject that will most likely continue to increase in terms of visibility. I hope and pray that people will remember that despite whatever gender a person identifies as, they are still a human being and are worthy of basic respect until proven unworthy. It's my sincere hope that none of you at the very least lower yourself to the level of disrespect shown by this man:
Tennessee Bathroom Bill Sponsor: 'I Would Stomp A Mudhole' In A Transgender Person | ThinkProgress


----------



## flint757

ghstofperdition said:


> After re-reading through all of this and in light of more recent news, I've come to a conclusion; none of this going back and forth is really relevant anymore. The rules have been changed and she is allowed to compete and will be doing so. So at this point (to paraphrase family guy) it's like sex with Kobe Bryant, you can kick and scream about it all you want, but in the end, it's just gonna happen.
> 
> Despite my opinions (however right/wrong they may be) this is an issue that needs addressing and this is a touchy subject that will most likely continue to increase in terms of visibility. I hope and pray that people will remember that despite whatever gender a person identifies as, they are still a human being and are worthy of basic respect until proven unworthy. It's my sincere hope that none of you at the very least lower yourself to the level of disrespect shown by this man:
> Tennessee Bathroom Bill Sponsor: 'I Would Stomp A Mudhole' In A Transgender Person | ThinkProgress



What he wrote coincides pretty well with what Repub's in office think of Gay's in the military. He is someone who no one in there right mind should listen to. Instead of attacking the LGBT community like he did he could have presented his case in his favor by saying perverts may pretend to dress up to take a peek or something like that (I don't believe that is what's happening). It'd still be ridiculous, but it least he wouldn't sound like a 100% asshat (only 80% ). To me it is retarded anyways just because dudes don't worry about it when in the bathroom and not to mention women bathrooms only have stall's. Changing rooms too. It isn't like it is an open area where everyone is having pillow fights in lingerie. You'd think if you wanted to be a douchebag that you'd it least attempt at making your discriminatory laws seem less discriminatory. 

In any case a law like that shouldn't be in place, especially before removing many other things things that are actually dangerous and still legal.


----------



## tacotiklah

^Agreed.

Sorry if I derailed the thread a bit, but I was just trying to express a hope that you guys at least don't see transpeople as a less than human freak worthy of having a mudhole stomped in them, regardless of whether or not you agree with the concept.


----------



## Greatoliver

Just to mention the chromosome stuff: While there are cases where you get XX males etc., these are diagnosable conditions, which have resulted from either mutations or mistakes in the meiosis divisions - they can be tested for. So while merely looking at the chromosomes formed during cell division to see if they have a little one and a big one, or two big ones, may not correlate with the genitalia, you could test for irregularities on the allosomes.


----------



## ilyti

I'd like to say one more thing about this: She could have competed in a trans pageant. But she decided to misrepresent herself in the application forms for this pageant, and then this media storm happened, eventually leading to her reinstatement to the competition. 

What is the prevailing view of this situation of the women who compete in trans pageants? Wouldn't they be pissed off that they weren't given the chance first? That this noob came in and manipulated the circumstances to make sure she's the FIRST TRANS IN MISS UNIVERSE!! Again, whether she wins or not, she's basically exactly like Neil Armstrong.


----------



## flint757

ilyti said:


> I'd like to say one more thing about this: She could have competed in a trans pageant. But she decided to misrepresent herself in the application forms for this pageant, and then this media storm happened, eventually leading to her reinstatement to the competition.
> 
> What is the prevailing view of this situation of the women who compete in trans pageants? Wouldn't they be pissed off that they weren't given the chance first? That this noob came in and manipulated the circumstances to make sure she's the FIRST TRANS IN MISS UNIVERSE!! Again, whether she wins or not, she's basically exactly like Neil Armstrong.



So are you saying that is good or bad??? 

In any case that has been said already in this thread and for the most part everyone is in agreement that she shouldn't have lied.


----------



## ilyti

I'm saying there are positives and negatives to the situation. I just think we need to step back and realize that. She lied, because she thought she could get away with it, and that would probably make other women who would compete in trans pageants (those who respect established rules, and who, IMO, are more secure in their own skin, fine with people knowing they are male-to-female.) I'm just saying, such women would probably be jealous of her success, but hopefully not to the point of hating her, or trying to tear her down. My point is kinda unrelated to whether it should have happened or not, it's just an observation.


----------



## flint757

ilyti said:


> I'm saying there are positives and negatives to the situation. I just think we need to step back and realize that. She lied, because she thought she could get away with it, and that would probably make other women who would compete in trans pageants (those who respect established rules, and who, IMO, are more secure in their own skin, fine with people knowing they are male-to-female.) I'm just saying, such women would probably be jealous of her success, but hopefully not to the point of hating her, or trying to tear her down. My point is kinda unrelated to whether it should have happened or not, it's just an observation.



In terms of the pageant itself I can honestly say that if she had went and asked ahead of time (before the media fire) they would have told her to GTFO. Whether that makes it okay is debatable. I would agree about a natural woman doing a tran pageant might get a lot of heat, but that being said you don't really see such problems cropping up either.


----------



## Ben.Last

flint757 said:


> In terms of the pageant itself I can honestly say that if she had went and asked ahead of time (before the media fire) they would have told her to GTFO. Whether that makes it okay is debatable. I would agree about a natural woman doing a tran pageant might get a lot of heat, but that being said you don't really see such problems cropping up either.



It makes it "not ok" actually. It's a privately run pageant. They have rules. She lied to bypass the rules. It would be like lying on an application to get a job. Not ok. I have serious issues with modern society's ideal of "forced inclusion in everything" though, so...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Does anyone know if the hand trick still works?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Also ill be really honest, im all for lgbt rights but this makes me ver uncomfortable


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> It makes it "not ok" actually. It's a privately run pageant. They have rules. She lied to bypass the rules. It would be like lying on an application to get a job. Not ok. I have serious issues with modern society's ideal of "forced inclusion in everything" though, so...



I was more speaking of right or wrong based on the exclusion alone because while a trans pageant is very clear socially on who is in it other than the rule itself if you knew nothing about pageants it isn't glaringly obvious that it excludes all but the most pure of women in mainstream pageants.

I suppose I feel the same way about it and I wasn't justifying it. All I was stating is that if she hadn't the rule would be the same and she wouldn't be participating.



Stealthdjentstic said:


> Does anyone know if the hand trick still works?



 I don't think so...


----------



## Ben.Last

flint757 said:


> I suppose I feel the same way about it and I wasn't justifying it. All I was stating is that if she hadn't the rule would be the same and she wouldn't be participating.



Which, in my opinion, should be the case. I'm sorry, I'm incredibly open minded, but to pretend that a transgendered woman is going to appeal to the general audience of this is ludicrous. It's simply not the right venue. Again, this ideal that everyone has a right to be included in whatever they want is utterly silly, in my opinion. I'm a huge proponent of individuals' rights to live their lives as they choose, but what's next? A furry attempting to take part in the Westminster dog show? People who are into pony play trying to get a slot at horse races? Sorry, the universe is not all inclusive and, frankly, that's okay.


----------



## Nimgoble

Lern2swim said:


> Which, in my opinion, should be the case. I'm sorry, I'm incredibly open minded, but to pretend that a transgendered woman is going to appeal to the general audience of this is ludicrous.



You mean the transgender woman who became a finalist? True, the audience may not do the voting(I don't know if they do or not), but I doubt the taste of the judges would be that far off of their audience.



> It's simply not the right venue. Again, this ideal that everyone has a right to be included in whatever they want is utterly silly, in my opinion. I'm a huge proponent of individuals' rights to live their lives as they choose, but what's next? A furry attempting to take part in the Westminster dog show? People who are into pony play trying to get a slot at horse races? Sorry, the universe is not all inclusive and, frankly, that's okay.



This is not the case of a human being claiming they are another species. Nor is it even close to that. As this thread has established, there is no CLEAR definition of what constitutes a "female". And "female" was the key word used in the rule in question. It's very possible that the contestant saw herself as a naturally born female, born with the wrong body. I agree with you that not everything is inclusive, nor should it be. But everything SHOULD have clear criteria for what it includes, lest something like this happens.



Stealthdjentstic said:


> Also ill be really honest, im all for lgbt rights but this makes me ver uncomfortable



How does this make you uncomfortable? People are acting like acknowledging this person as a woman is going to make your balls fall off, your dick shoot back up in to your body, your chromosomes freak the fuck out, and the onset of a sudden love for Prada. Grow up. 

Sorry. Deep breath.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Lern2swim said:


> Which, in my opinion, should be the case. I'm sorry, I'm incredibly open minded, but to pretend that a transgendered woman is going to appeal to the general audience of this is ludicrous. It's simply not the right venue. Again, this ideal that everyone has a right to be included in whatever they want is utterly silly, in my opinion. * I'm a huge proponent of individuals' rights to live their lives as they choose,* *but what's next? A furry attempting to take part in the Westminster dog show? People who are into pony play trying to get a slot at horse races?* Sorry, the universe is not all inclusive and, frankly, that's okay.



Comparing LGBT people to animals, where have I heard this before?


"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. *That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not [Marriage is not], you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.* It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality" -Rick Santorum


Nice incredibly offensive slippery-slope argument.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Nimgoble said:


> How does this make you uncomfortable? People are acting like acknowledging this person as a woman is going to make your balls fall off, your dick shoot back up in to your body, your chromosomes freak the fuck out, and the onset of a sudden love for Prada. Grow up.
> 
> Sorry. Deep breath.



Well I already love prada..


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> You mean the transgender woman who became a finalist? True, the audience may not do the voting(I don't know if they do or not), but I doubt the taste of the judges would be that far off of their audience.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the case of a human being claiming they are another species. Nor is it even close to that. As this thread has established, there is no CLEAR definition of what constitutes a "female". And "female" was the key word used in the rule in question. It's very possible that the contestant saw herself as a naturally born female, born with the wrong body. I agree with you that not everything is inclusive, nor should it be. But everything SHOULD have clear criteria for what it includes, lest something like this happens.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this make you uncomfortable? People are acting like acknowledging this person as a woman is going to make your balls fall off, your dick shoot back up in to your body, your chromosomes freak the fuck out, and the onset of a sudden love for Prada. Grow up.
> 
> Sorry. Deep breath.


Wrong body? Honestly..too bad..she was born as a man..not a valid excuse. I'd love to go to a woman's locker room and tell them "It's okay..no need to call the police..I'm just not in the right body today"

I can understand why it makes people uncomfortable and if you don't see it then I don't think I can make it anymore obvious as to why. No one is saying trangendered people are horrible or anything, but to think there are men walking around who resemble women is creepy to some and it makes a whole world of sense. Just because you're fine with that, you don't get to jump down the throats of others who aren't so alright with the concept. Basis of the entire story is..she was born as, and still is, a man. Now she's a man who looks like a woman. It makes sense people would be a little uneasy with that. No one's grabbing pitch forks and trying to run her out of town, but she lied, and entered a competition made for biological women..those who were born women..and if you ask what defines a woman, then I certainly can't help you if you don't know the answer to that.




Lern2swim said:


> Which, in my opinion, should be the case. I'm sorry, I'm incredibly open minded, but to pretend that a transgendered woman is going to appeal to the general audience of this is ludicrous. It's simply not the right venue. Again, this ideal that everyone has a right to be included in whatever they want is utterly silly, in my opinion. I'm a huge proponent of individuals' rights to live their lives as they choose, but what's next? A furry attempting to take part in the Westminster dog show? People who are into pony play trying to get a slot at horse races? Sorry, the universe is not all inclusive and, frankly, that's okay.



Ya know..I agree with the last statement. Everything ain't for everybody. That's life and that's how it works, when you're born, there are some things you're automatically excluded from..deal with it..that's life. We all have it no matter what and who we are


----------



## flint757

highlordmugfug said:


> Comparing LGBT people to animals, where have I heard this before?
> 
> 
> "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. *That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not [Marriage is not], you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.* It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality" -Rick Santorum
> 
> 
> Nice incredibly offensive slippery-slope argument.



Agreed and as to the rest of the continued conversation one side thinks x and one y, while both sides are presuming that they are completely right and the other wrong. Nothing wrong with that i suppose since that is what politics basically is but there are very few absolutes in this world so there is no reason to presume anyone is completely right especially on a topic that until recently didn't get discussed very heavily.


----------



## Nimgoble

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> ..and if you ask what defines a woman, then I certainly can't help you if you don't know the answer to that.



This is the problem, right here. Your arguments hinge on something you can't even explain. You and everyone else who uses these arguments are just clinging to your narrow-minded, black-and-white views for, what seems to be, the sake of comfort. 

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Necris

Nimgoble said:


> This is the problem, right here. Your arguments hinge on something you can't even explain. You and everyone else who uses these arguments are just clinging to your narrow-minded, black-and-white views for, what seems to be, the sake of comfort.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.


Unfortunately for this woman that is how our culture is. When someone says the word "woman" or "female" or "girl" we just assume a person who was born with 2 x chromosomes, a female body and genitalia and a "female mind". We never even consider the possibility of someone being born xo, xxx, xxy, with ambiguous genitals, or having their gender assigned at birth etc. It just doesn't happen.
Being a part of our culture, when she entered the contest she was well aware of what the rules implied when they said "born female" but she chose to compete anyway. 
We can argue that the rule is discriminatory if we want, but since it was a privately funded event the people funding it could be as discriminatory as they pleased regarding the rules they set.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> This is the problem, right here. Your arguments hinge on something you can't even explain. You and everyone else who uses these arguments are just clinging to your narrow-minded, black-and-white views for, what seems to be, the sake of comfort.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.



I've said more times than I care to, that there are exceptions to the rule..but those exceptions don't destroy the rule. We know what a biological female is..sure there are exceptions but excluding those we know what one is. I get you want to stump us by bringing up all the exceptions but since they have nothing to do with it, you trying to wave the flag for those exceptions just seems pointless. What's narrow minded is your refusal to understand that not everyone thinks like you. I see both sides and I have an opinion..but it's just that, my opinion. You trying to force everyone to agree with you is tiresome at best. MY point is, not everyone agrees nor should they have to. On this specific topic, where sex is something most of us agree on and have since we were first able to understand the concept, I can understand why people would be confused/creeped out or whatever. They shouldn't be attacked just because of someone trying hard to force everyone into a "new age of thinking" in terms of sex and gender. If you see it your way, cool..but busting a blood vessel over something like this will get you nowhere because many are leaving here with the same opinion they came in with..and I'm one of those people


----------



## vampiregenocide

I fail to see what isn't clear about what is male and female? If you ovulate you're at least part female. And then there's the genetic part of it. That's not open to interpretation. Okay sure, there are occasionally exceptions in the case of hermaphrodites, but otherwise it's a very simple concept. Male and female is a clear biological description. Man and woman, however, are words that are a little more open in their use. These are human terms, whereas male and female are used to describe sex with other species. Man and woman are social terms, so I can completely understand a woman identifying themselves as a man because they relate to that gender more. They wouldn't be male though. Not even with surgery. That's just the way it is. It isn't going to change and it would be quite frankly silly to expect it to. Human beings classify the world in order to understand it, just roll with it.


----------



## Ben.Last

I'm bisexual; so I find your insinuation incredibly ironic. I stand by my analogy. I'm sorry if it's not politically correct enough for you. But, quite frankly, I find your comparison of my statements to anti gay marriage sentiments much more insulting. Santorum's idiocy in relation to gay marriage is entirely different. He seeks to continue to prevent couples from being allowed to enter into a legal union that would have absolutely zero negative effect on anyone else. My statement is an explanation of why allowing this individual to enter into a contest that is, at it's base element, about picking the woman that men would most likely want to put their dicks in is preposterous in a world where, were there no misrepresentation, most of the audience would not want to do so with her.



highlordmugfug said:


> Comparing LGBT people to animals, where have I heard this before?
> 
> 
> "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. *That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not [Marriage is not], you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.* It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality" -Rick Santorum
> 
> 
> Nice incredibly offensive slippery-slope argument.


----------



## Ben.Last

Nimgoble said:


> You mean the transgender woman who became a finalist? True, the audience may not do the voting(I don't know if they do or not), but I doubt the taste of the judges would be that far off of their audience.



I beg to differ. I'd argue that it's much more likely that the judges would be vastly more inclined to vote for political reasons than the audience at large.




Nimgoble said:


> This is not the case of a human being claiming they are another species. Nor is it even close to that. As this thread has established, there is no CLEAR definition of what constitutes a "female". And "female" was the key word used in the rule in question. It's very possible that the contestant saw herself as a naturally born female, born with the wrong body.



Okay. Let's just assume utterly overwhelming ignorance in every instance where things like this are not achingly over-explained from now on then. 




Nimgoble said:


> How does this make you uncomfortable? People are acting like acknowledging this person as a woman is going to make your balls fall off, your dick shoot back up in to your body, your chromosomes freak the fuck out, and the onset of a sudden love for Prada. Grow up.



This is true. You know what requires a lot more growing up though? Acknowledging that NOT everyone is going to view a transgendered woman in the same light as a naturally born woman. It takes a lot more growing up to get past the need to view everything through these rose colored, PC glasses and live in the real world, while still being respectful of others in every way possible instead of simple, generalized, cookie cutter bullshit ways.


----------



## flint757

This thread stopped being constructive and a place to learn etc. a long time ago.

Now both sides are just brow beating each other. Drakkar said it best everyone (mostly) coming into this thread has their own opinion and is leaving with it. It has become cyclical and slightly aggressive since.

/thread


----------



## Ben.Last

flint757 said:


> This thread stopped being constructive and a place to learn etc. a long time ago.
> 
> Now both sides are just brow beating each other. Drakkar said it best everyone (mostly) coming into this thread has their own opinion and is leaving with it. It has become cyclical and slightly aggressive since.
> 
> /thread



Discussion is a process. It's very rarely a case of, "Hmmm. Your very first statement has completely changed my opinion, and I know feel the way you do."(and it is very rarely a discussion of any value if that IS the case). I see very little aggression in here. How about, rather than throwing your hands up in frustration, you instead try adding something that you feel IS constructive? "/thread" sure isn't, and it also doesn't actually work.


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> Discussion is a process. It's very rarely a case of, "Hmmm. Your very first statement has completely changed my opinion, and I know feel the way you do."(and it is very rarely a discussion of any value if that IS the case). I see very little aggression in here. How about, rather than throwing your hands up in frustration, you instead try adding something that you feel IS constructive? "/thread" sure isn't, and it also doesn't actually work.



No duh sherlock it doesn't work that way . Read through and I have said my piece and many others as well. The arguments coming up have already been discussed on both sides in great detail (hence my cyclical comment). Bringing the same comments and questions back up doesn't make them more right or relevant. Maybe read through before you post. Exactly it doesn't work that way, but that isn't my point in the first place. No one is bringing anything new to the table. Thus, it has turned into repeat what I said, repeats what he/she said, saying your wrong and that my opinion is objective, etc. etc.

Sarcasm can come across as aggression , but that wasn't even my logic for saying this thread should just be closed. My logic is that there is literally nothing being said that hasn't already been said in this exact thread. Not throwing hands up in frustration you read into my post just as much as I did in yours by saying that .

[EDIT]
I wasn't directly referring to you anyways. I thought that awhile back.


----------



## Ben.Last

I didn't say that you were referring to me.


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> I didn't say that you were referring to me.



I know I was just clarifying...


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Lern2swim said:


> Discussion is a process. It's very rarely a case of, "Hmmm. Your very first statement has completely changed my opinion, and I know feel the way you do."(and it is very rarely a discussion of any value if that IS the case). I see very little aggression in here. How about, rather than throwing your hands up in frustration, you instead try adding something that you feel IS constructive? "/thread" sure isn't, and it also doesn't actually work.


This man speaks truth


----------



## highlordmugfug

Lern2swim said:


> I'm bisexual; so I find your insinuation incredibly ironic. I stand by my analogy. I'm sorry if it's not politically correct enough for you. But, quite frankly, I find your comparison of my statements to anti gay marriage sentiments much more insulting. Santorum's idiocy in relation to gay marriage is entirely different. He seeks to continue to prevent couples from being allowed to enter into a legal union that would have absolutely zero negative effect on anyone else. My statement is an explanation of why allowing this individual to enter into a contest that is, at it's base element, about picking the woman that men would most likely want to put their dicks in is preposterous in a world where, were there no misrepresentation, most of the audience would not want to do so with her.


Being bisexual doesn't make your opinion more valid, than another bisexual guy's. 

And I wasn't insinuating anything, you compared LGBT people to animals, so did Santorum, and both were examples of slippery slope logic. I meant exactly what I said.


----------



## Jakke

highlordmugfug said:


> And I wasn't insinuating anything, you compared LGBT people to animals, so did Santorum, and both were examples of slippery slope logic. I meant exactly what I said.



But he didn't really do that, he was illustrating that you cannot set the rules aside just because *you* yourself believe them to be wrong. A furry might very well see him/herself as a dog, but a dog pageant still won't accept him/her. They have defined what constitutes a dog to them, and a furry does not fit within that definition. 
This is a private enterprise, thus their right to make their own rules should be respected. 
He did not say LGBT people are animals, even though they are, as we are all animals strictly speaking. This is a very inflamed topic, and there are a lot of invested emotion, but misrepresenting someones argument (it's a strawman really) is not really productive


----------



## Ben.Last

Jakke said:


> But he didn't really do that, he was illustrating that you cannot set the rules aside just because *you* yourself believe them to be wrong. A furry might very well see him/herself as a dog, but a dog pageant still won't accept him/her. They have defined what constitutes a dog to them, and a furry does not fit within that definition.
> This is a private enterprise, thus their right to make their own rules should be respected.
> He did not say LGBT people are animals, even though they are, as we are all animals strictly speaking. This is a very inflamed topic, and there are a lot of invested emotion, but misrepresenting someones argument (it's a strawman really) is not really productive



This. Thank you.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Jakke said:


> But he didn't really do that, he was illustrating that you cannot set the rules aside just because *you* yourself believe them to be wrong. A furry might very well see him/herself as a dog, but a dog pageant still won't accept him/her. They have defined what constitutes a dog to them, and a furry does not fit within that definition.
> This is a private enterprise, thus their right to make their own rules should be respected.
> *He did not say LGBT people are animals*, even though they are, as we are all animals strictly speaking. This is a very inflamed topic, and there are a lot of invested emotion, but *misrepresenting someones argument (it's a strawman really) is not really productive*


Then don't misconstrue mine by saying I said he said they were animals (and I know that we're mammals/animals, no need for condescension). I said he COMPARED them to animals. 

I never expressed my opinion on if the pageant was right or not in booting her, and honestly I'm sort of on the fence (private pageant so they can set the rules they want, but the rule is vague and discriminatory so of course I disagree with it on that), but that's beside the point anyway. I pointed out that his argument was slippery slope, and offensive by *COMPARING* LGBT people to animals that have, as we perceive it, a lesser or at least not the same sort of cognition that humans do. That's offensive, and in my opinion (and to a lot of other people) demeaning. Sex and species are not even something that's close to the same. That was my entire point. So if you're trying to argue about what this thread is actually about, you're addressing the wrong person (with a strawman argument of your own).

Carry on.

EDIT: I can agree with your basic premise, but disagree with the validity of an argument you're using to support it.


----------



## Jakke

highlordmugfug said:


> Then don't misconstrue mine by saying I said he said they were animals (and I know that we're mammals/animals, no need for condescension). I said he COMPARED them to animals.



I apologize and correct myself to comparison, my point still stands though, in what way did he compare LGBT people to animals?

Also, I would not dream of being condescending, that we are animals is pretty much 100% known outside fundie circles, what I did was that I saw it fit to be mentioned.



highlordmugfug said:


> I never expressed my opinion on if the pageant was right or not in booting her, and honestly I'm sort of on the fence (private pageant so they can set the rules they want, but the rule is vague and discriminatory so of course I disagree with it on that), but that's beside the point anyway. I pointed out that his argument was slippery slope, and offensive by *COMPARING* LGBT people to animals that have, as we perceive it, a lesser or at least not the same sort of cognition that humans do. That's offensive, and in my opinion (and to a lot of other people) demeaning. Sex and species are not even something that's close to the same. That was my entire point. So if you're trying to argue about what this thread is actually about, you're addressing the wrong person (with a strawman argument of your own).



I agree that it is an unjustified slippery slope, but I can still not see where he compared LGBT people to animals.

I adress you because I believe that you are wrong here and overly confrontational. He has not 100% watertight argument, but you pull it to its extreme, and make him out so say things that he haven't. 
If this pageant has rules that that says you have to be born biologically female to compete, while a dog pageant says that you have to be born biologically a dog to compete, can you not see the reasoning behind the argument? It is in both cases arbitrary rules set based on biological principles.
While I agree that sex and species is not comparable (which is not what he did either), it works quite well to hammer in the point that the pageant can set whatever rules they like.



highlordmugfug said:


> *and offensive by COMPARING LGBT people to animals that have, as we perceive it, a lesser or at least not the same sort of cognition that humans do*



This is interesting, so he did also say that LGBT people are stupid according to you? Animals often also has fur to a greater extent than humans, so by the same reasoning I can claim that he believes gays have a lot more body hair than the average other human. But then, that would be riddiculous, right? Yet that has the same factual support as your conclusion about cognitive functions.

TL;DR, I believe you are over-interpreting.


----------



## Ben.Last

I actually compared them to people/fetishists/whatever heading you like that live their lives, at least in part, as animals. Since my actual point is that the fact that that's how they choose to live their lives does not actually make them whatever animal that may in the eyes of many institutions, I cannot, in fact, be comparing lgbt individuals to animals. 

Further, I know a number of individuals that do live their lives as such that would likely be insulted by the fact that you call the comparison demeaning. Many LGBT individuals with any ties to the bdsm/kink scene would probably feel much the same. They would also probably disagree with my stance on such inclusions, though; so, let's call that a wash, shall we?


----------



## highlordmugfug

Jakke said:


> I adress you because I believe that you are wrong here and overly confrontational. He has not 100% watertight argument, but you pull it to its extreme, and make him out so say things that he haven't.
> *If this pageant has rules that that says you have to be born biologically female to compete, while a dog pageant says that you have to be born biologically a dog to compete, can you not see the reasoning behind the argument? *It is in both cases arbitrary rules set based on biological principles.
> While I agree that sex and species is not comparable (which is not what he did either), it works quite well to hammer in the point that the pageant can set whatever rules they like.
> 
> This is interesting, so he did also say that LGBT people are stupid according to you?
> 
> TL;DR, I believe you are over-interpreting.


Because feeling/saying you are another species, is a very different thing from feeling/saying you are a different sex. There's a lot of sexual identity issues that we're well aware of and we even have means (surgically, and chemically/hormonally) to affect what we know of as sex and how we treat the concept of sex (and there are things such as hermaphrodites, homosexuals, transexuals, etc) but not ways to change the species of something.

And about the pageant, I don't really have more to say about it other than the opinion I expressed in my last post.

And no, but but by comparing them to furries, who themselves claim to be animals (the wannabe transpeciationist) it is similar to comparing them to animals. If someone wants to be another sex, or feels that they are another sex, they have means to do that. It is something that is possible. If someone wants to be another species, it won't (and can't) happen. (and honestly, most furries, at least the ones I'm familiar with, are a joke in if, if they really want to be animals, they never move out into the woods, let go of all of their things, stop using language and become part of a pack, etc. or do any of the other things that being an animal entails. Being a furry in a purely sexual manner is a different story entirely). 

It's not that he called them stupid, but that that sort of comparison is often used in a way to demean/belittle LGBT so it's not one that I've seen used in a positive light.

And I guess I did over-interpret a bit.  And  to both of you.



Lern2swim said:


> I actually compared them to people/fetishists/whatever heading you like that live their lives, at least in part, as animals. Since my actual point is that the fact that that's how they choose to live their lives does not actually make them whatever animal that may in the eyes of many institutions, I cannot, in fact, be comparing lgbt individuals to animals.
> 
> Further, I know a number of individuals that do live their lives as such that would likely be insulted by the fact that you call the comparison demeaning. Many LGBT individuals with any ties to the bdsm/kink scene would probably feel much the same. They would also probably disagree with my stance on such inclusions, though; so, let's call that a wash, shall we?


Furries as a sexual fetish is different than what I took it as (people who legitimately want to be/believe that they are other species). So, I apologize for the misinterpretation.


----------



## Ben.Last

highlordmugfug said:


> Furries as a sexual fetish is different than what I took it as (people who legitimately want to be/believe that they are other species). So, I apologize for the misinterpretation.



I guess I could have given more background, initially, but I figured that outing myself as bi AND deeply involved with the bdsm scene would have seemed somewhat pandering. 

I've met all types. From people who just do the sexual fetish furry thing to people who actually act as animals totally separate from anything sexual (you are correct in your assessment about the practical non-existence of individuals that would take it to the full extent). There are varying degrees of "silliness" depending, but I do know plenty of individuals that have my utmost respect in their choices. While I have not specifically had a discussion and dog show/horse race type situations, I do know some individuals that believe they should be allowed to play, as their animal, in dog parks and such. Much like my stance about this woman competing in the pageant, I just can't support that, as much as I respect their individual Lifestyle choices.


----------



## Jakke

highlordmugfug said:


> And I guess I did over-interpret a bit.  And  to both of you



Ah, no bad blood at all, funny 'ol world if no one disagreed on anything


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Am I the only one that didn't know that being a "Furry" was a real thing until coming into this thread?


----------



## Ben.Last

Adam Of Angels said:


> Am I the only one that didn't know that being a "Furry" was a real thing until coming into this thread?



Haha. I doubt you're the only one. To be fair, I'm generalizing with the term a bit. Furries are different than people who do animal play are different than people who do pony play are different than... Etc. if furries Wong real surprises you, trust me, there's a whole lot more out there.


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> Am I the only one that didn't know that being a "Furry" was a real thing until coming into this thread?



Ya had never heard of that either. 

I can see why there was issue with the analogy. Analogies don't only try and rationalize another topic they tend to invoke an emotional response as well. As an example Santorum did make the analogues connection between Beastiality and gay marriage so in some cases analogies are meant to invoke an emotional response and most do in the process of trying to prove a point.

That being said after knowing what a furry is that analogy did no such thing, it was a fair comparison, albeit a stretch.

I would like to point out that y'all are saying that male and female are concrete and that man and woman are not so much (or it least one person said that). So that being said the rule really is unclear since if I'm not mistaken it in fact says woman not female. Nimgoble has a good point they could have avoided all of this with better definitions in their rules. Laws/rules should be more ironclad than there were. I'd say there shouldn't have been such a media storm from this, but when success is achieved it does set the precedence that people should turn things into a media storm. Whether someone feels like she should compete is moot because she can now.

As for the reference to the pageant being a "who I'd like to stick my dick in" competition, that is tad bit demeaning to the contenders and people who watch (even if true). Also, that is a poor reason IMO to exclude someone from something. Under that presumption I could say beach volleyball is just to watch women in tight clothes and see there boobs bounce around so ugly women and men shouldn't be a part of it. This is a beauty pageant if someone is hot or sexy is all they are really measuring anyways and while I'd probably never sleep with a transsexual I can admit that the lady of this topic is pretty hot. Again these are my personal perceptions and others have theirs and in both instances it definitely doesn't matter because the competition can do whatever they want.


----------



## Ben.Last

Well, with the "who I'd like to stick my dick in" comment, I did specifically say "at it's base element." it's a beauty pageant, beauty is a measure of attractiveness and attractiveness, at it's core is about, yes, sex. So, yes, beauty pageants are kind of about picking out people we'd want to bang. Hence me calling into question including someone that most of the target audience would not consider to meet that base standard (the female portion of the audience does, potentially, throw a wrench in this opinion, but I'm not sure that can't be chalked up to primitive instinct as well). I think she's beautiful. I'd fuck her, but I'm not the norm, and I'm sure as hell not part of the pageant audience. 

Also, your beach volleyball analogy doesn't fly. That's a sport. It happens to be a sport that often includes the ogling of participants, but, he'll, women dig football players' asses in their uniform pants too. That's entirely different than a competition based solely around the aesthetic attractiveness of the contestants. 

I think sometimes, when we try to remain politically correct and not say anything that may be interpreted as insulting or demeaning, we potentially lose some very basic truths in the process.


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> Well, with the "who I'd like to stick my dick in" comment, I did specifically say "at it's base element." it's a beauty pageant, beauty is a measure of attractiveness and attractiveness, at it's core is about, yes, sex. So, yes, beauty pageants are kind of about picking out people we'd want to bang. Hence me calling into question including someone that most of the target audience would not consider to meet that base standard (the female portion of the audience does, potentially, throw a wrench in this opinion, but I'm not sure that can't be chalked up to primitive instinct as well). I think she's beautiful. I'd fuck her, but I'm not the norm, and I'm sure as hell not part of the pageant audience.
> 
> Also, your beach volleyball analogy doesn't fly. That's a sport. It happens to be a sport that often includes the ogling of participants, but, he'll, women dig football players' asses in their uniform pants too. That's entirely different than a competition based solely around the aesthetic attractiveness of the contestants.
> 
> I think sometimes, when we try to remain politically correct and not say anything that may be interpreted as insulting or demeaning, we potentially lose some very basic truths in the process.



I can agree with pretty much all of that. And yeah I suppose being politically correct does seem to hide what people really think. Honestly, I'm not 100% what my full opinion is on this since I don't have much stake in it and I dont have anything to gain either being what is defined societally as a normal straight male.


----------



## bob123

To this I say : 

Your lifestyle choices are you own, I (And no one else should for that matter) will NEVER personally judge a person based on that fact. However, your body is what it is. If you were born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina you are a woman. There's no surgery, no hormonal treatment, no nothing that will ever change that fact. 

Its a competition for women. Not men who think they are women, not men that dress as women, not men who have surgery to get female parts, but women. 

Until they let straight, normal dressing men in beauty pageants, then cross-dressers, and transgenders have no right to be there either. I'd rather see Brad Pitt up there, then some of those broken faced women, anyway.

Think of it like women playing in the NFL or NBA.... Some things just aren't gonna happen. 

My 2 cents....


----------



## tacotiklah

I learned a lot from tnis thread, and most of what I've learned has little to do with the OP. It's a stern reminder that transpeople have many more dark days ahead. It's good to have a bit more clarity on where people stand; not just in this forum but in general. I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's like watching old footage of the civil rights protests all over again. Same hate, just repackaged and relabeled. It's like the old saying goes: "Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." Well after gays and transgenders win their equal rights, I can't help but wonder who's gonna be America's scapegoat and punching bag next. Midgets? Senior citizens? I know Muslims are getting some pretty good flak from the right-wingers. Most likely them.

Murrica. Fuck yeah.


----------



## flint757

bob123 said:


> To this I say :
> 
> Your lifestyle choices are you own, I (And no one else should for that matter) will NEVER personally judge a person based on that fact. However, your body is what it is. If you were born with a penis, you are a man. If you are born with a vagina you are a woman. There's no surgery, no hormonal treatment, no nothing that will ever change that fact.
> 
> Its a competition for women. Not men who think they are women, not men that dress as women, not men who have surgery to get female parts, but women.
> 
> Until they let straight, normal dressing men in beauty pageants, then cross-dressers, and transgenders have no right to be there either. I'd rather see Brad Pitt up there, then some of those broken faced women, anyway.
> 
> Think of it like women playing in the NFL or NBA.... Some things just aren't gonna happen.
> 
> My 2 cents....



That is different. Women just can't perform on the same level as men in those sports. (Women can't dunk and are usually not the size of trucks )

Frankly it'd be more interesting if they let everyone into beauty pageants. Beauty really isn't defined on the gender level IMO. I'm straight and can admit when a dude looks damn good. (most people cover that up by saying they wish they looked more like them, but it is the same in principle) Anyone who feels differently is not necessarily sexually confused, but definitely weak of mind in the department (fear of being turned mentality). Why can't we just determine who is the prettiest of us all no matter the creed, sex, orientation, etc.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Because randys mom would win everytime


----------



## Ben.Last

ghstofperdition said:


> I learned a lot from tnis thread, and most of what I've learned has little to do with the OP. It's a stern reminder that transpeople have many more dark days ahead. It's good to have a bit more clarity on where people stand; not just in this forum but in general. I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's like watching old footage of the civil rights protests all over again. Same hate, just repackaged and relabeled. It's like the old saying goes: "Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." Well after gays and transgenders win their equal rights, I can't help but wonder who's gonna be America's scapegoat and punching bag next. Midgets? Senior citizens? I know Muslims are getting some pretty good flak from the right-wingers. Most likely them.
> 
> Murrica. Fuck yeah.



Comparing everything to the civil rights movement does not, in fact, make it so. I'm sorry that everyone is not born a beige hermaphrodite, so that we can all be equally the same exact person, but it's just not the case. You may see hate, narrow mindedness, and mean spiritedness, but I, at the same time, do not see this as a victory of any sort, for anyone. I wish, for at least a little while, we could all get beyond trying to be exactly the same and beyond trying to cram every square peg into a round hole and enjoy and appreciate the ways that we are different. Does that sound like I'm looking for a scapegoat to you? I'd have a lot more respect for this woman if she did not use deceit and lies to achieve what you view as a "victory."

None of this... NONE OF IT... means I have slightly less than the utmost respect for how you choose to live your life, or how anyone else chooses to live their lives.


----------



## Ben.Last

flint757 said:


> Why can't we just determine who is the prettiest of us all no matter the creed, sex, orientation, etc.



Because that is not the way that brains are wired. And I'm not even speaking of human brains. I'm speaking of brains in general. There's not a single species on this planet that works in a comparable way to what you're talking about. And we can deny the fact that we are a part of nature all we want; it doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> Because that is not the way that brains are wired. And I'm not even speaking of human brains. I'm speaking of brains in general. There's not a single species on this planet that works in a comparable way to what you're talking about. And we can deny the fact that we are a part of nature all we want; it doesn't make it any more true.



Animal brains and human brains may be wired the same, but unlike other creatures we have more time to ponder and thus reach such possibilities I think. In other species only one sex demonstrates overkill beauty usually while trying to attract the other. We've hit a point where both sexes are trying to attract each other (women working arguably harder) so we are not the exact same anyways to other creatures. I've heard plenty of straight dude comment on how certain famous men look damn good so there are some holes in your theory.

That is a poor argument though since I suggested it and there are plenty of bisexual people who are attracted to both sexes and others who are comfortable with there sexuality so that being said wouldn't that mean a competition like that would be possible. Obviously it wouldn't exactly be mainstream popular, but still. you said it yourself that women can be attracted to other women (not necessarily sexually) so I think it is possible.


----------



## Ben.Last

flint757 said:


> Animal brains and human brains may be wired the same, but unlike other creatures we have more time to ponder and thus reach such possibilities I think. In other species only one sex demonstrates overkill beauty usually while trying to attract the other. We've hit a point where both sexes are trying to attract each other (women working arguably harder) so we are not the exact same anyways to other creatures. I've heard plenty of straight dude comment on how certain famous men look damn good so there are some holes in your theory.
> 
> That is a poor argument though since I suggested it and there are plenty of bisexual people who are attracted to both sexes and others who are comfortable with there sexuality so that being said wouldn't that mean a competition like that would be possible. Obviously it wouldn't exactly be mainstream popular, but still. you said it yourself that women can be attracted to other women (not necessarily sexually) so I think it is possible.



There's plenty of scientific evidence of actions throughout the animal kingdom that point to us being a lot closer on a basic level. Talking about things like male peacocks is really oversimplifying things, unless we take into account why the male peacocks are designed to try so hard to attract females. It's not actually a one sided thing. It just so happens that one side is more noticeable to us. Yes, we have many cognitive layers on top of those instincts, but it's become increasingly apparent to me over the years that that has as much a tendency to cloud matters as it does to provide us with clarity.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

ghstofperdition said:


> I learned a lot from tnis thread, and most of what I've learned has little to do with the OP. It's a stern reminder that transpeople have many more dark days ahead. It's good to have a bit more clarity on where people stand; not just in this forum but in general. I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's like watching old footage of the civil rights protests all over again. Same hate, just repackaged and relabeled. It's like the old saying goes: "Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." Well after gays and transgenders win their equal rights, I can't help but wonder who's gonna be America's scapegoat and punching bag next. Midgets? Senior citizens? I know Muslims are getting some pretty good flak from the right-wingers. Most likely them.
> 
> Murrica. Fuck yeah.





Lern2swim said:


> Comparing everything to the civil rights movement does not, in fact, make it so. I'm sorry that everyone is not born a beige hermaphrodite, so that we can all be equally the same exact person, but it's just not the case. You may see hate, narrow mindedness, and mean spiritedness, but I, at the same time, do not see this as a victory of any sort, for anyone. I wish, for at least a little while, we could all get beyond trying to be exactly the same and beyond trying to cram every square peg into a round hole and enjoy and appreciate the ways that we are different. Does that sound like I'm looking for a scapegoat to you? I'd have a lot more respect for this woman if she did not use deceit and lies to achieve what you view as a "victory."
> 
> None of this... NONE OF IT... means I have slightly less than the utmost respect for how you choose to live your life, or how anyone else chooses to live their lives.



Once again he speaks the truth..

And secondly..I cannot STAND when gays etc compare their issue with the civil rights movement. It is NOT the same and it's insulting to even suggest it. If you're honestly going to compare a man not being allowed to be in a woman's pageant to relatives as recent as in my mother and grandmother's lifetime being lynched and killed in front of their families, and own boyfriend watching a cross burning on his lawn as a child just because he's biracial..then you have SERIOUSLY missed out on the issue.


----------



## Jakke

ghstofperdition said:


> I learned a lot from tnis thread, and most of what I've learned has little to do with the OP. It's a stern reminder that transpeople have many more dark days ahead. It's good to have a bit more clarity on where people stand; not just in this forum but in general. I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's like watching old footage of the civil rights protests all over again. Same hate, just repackaged and relabeled. It's like the old saying goes: "Those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." Well after gays and transgenders win their equal rights, I can't help but wonder who's gonna be America's scapegoat and punching bag next. Midgets? Senior citizens? I know Muslims are getting some pretty good flak from the right-wingers. Most likely them.
> 
> Murrica. Fuck yeah.



What rights do I (even though I am a foreigner, but we'll say I'm american) have that a transperson don't have?


----------



## The Reverend

People don't make comparisons to the Civil Rights movement just out of whimsy. While transpeople, Jakke, legally have the right to get married in most states in America, run-of-the-mill gay people don't, so I suppose transpeople don't have any rights you wouldn't.

I think the main message of the Civil Rights movement went beyond a simple wish to reform laws. It was for the most part a desire to be _treated _as equals in every sense of the word, beyond the legal ramifications. Separate, but equal, does that ring a bell? So when people from the LGBT community make those comparisons, they actually aren't just making shit up. Hate crimes against LGBT people exist, Drak. It may not be as widespread as the institutionalized, centuries-old evil that black people here faced, but then again, their numbers are fewer and they've got the benefit of this somehow hated political correctness behind them. Hatred, intolerance, and discrimination against them exists. Why should they not liken their experience to one that's both relevant and recent in America's cultural heritage?


----------



## bob123

No one's rights were infringed upon. I Really dont understand why everyone is so up in arms about this. 

HE (yes HE) was in a competition for women. Thatd be like a male stripper applying to a female strip club and getting mad for not being hired. 

They have transgender pageants. sHE should go do one of them, because sHE would win all of them.


----------



## BlindingLight7

It took me 9 pages to come up with something witty...

Why ban her if the rest of the girls are just as fake? Fake tits, fake butts, fake faces, etc..

huzzah!

I'm going byebye now

so drunk


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

The Reverend said:


> People don't make comparisons to the Civil Rights movement just out of whimsy. While transpeople, Jakke, legally have the right to get married in most states in America, run-of-the-mill gay people don't, so I suppose transpeople don't have any rights you wouldn't.
> 
> I think the main message of the Civil Rights movement went beyond a simple wish to reform laws. It was for the most part a desire to be _treated _as equals in every sense of the word, beyond the legal ramifications. Separate, but equal, does that ring a bell? So when people from the LGBT community make those comparisons, they actually aren't just making shit up. Hate crimes against LGBT people exist, Drak. It may not be as widespread as the institutionalized, centuries-old evil that black people here faced, but then again, their numbers are fewer and they've got the benefit of this somehow hated political correctness behind them. Hatred, intolerance, and discrimination against them exists. Why should they not liken their experience to one that's both relevant and recent in America's cultural heritage?



Because most of the people who try to liken them are people who haven't dealt with racism. As a gay black person..the first thing people notice is my race. Being gay is something people don't have to know if I choose not to tell them, but being black is something I can't hide and it's something many of my relatives have died for. A gay person has many opportunities, especially if they're white that a straight black person still doesn't have. Do you think all the very financially successful gays, gay power couples, etc are living the "struggle" that black people faced? To even imply such a thing is ignorant at best. I understand that gay people have it difficult in some aspects, but there are alternatives and things that can be done..however you can't do anything about being black..just ask all the people who were castrated, lynched, raped, beaten, humiliated, terrorized, and killed..I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate well-to-do white gay guys claiming they have it just as hard.


----------



## flint757

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Because most of the people who try to liken them are people who haven't dealt with racism. As a gay black person..the first thing people notice is my race. Being gay is something people don't have to know if I choose not to tell them, but being black is something I can't hide and it's something many of my relatives have died for. A gay person has many opportunities, especially if they're white that a straight black person still doesn't have. Do you think all the very financially successful gays, gay power couples, etc are living the "struggle" that black people faced? To even imply such a thing is ignorant at best. I understand that gay people have it difficult in some aspects, but there are alternatives and things that can be done..however you can't do anything about being black..just ask all the people who were castrated, lynched, raped, beaten, humiliated, terrorized, and killed..I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate well-to-do white gay guys claiming they have it just as hard.



This actually matches a post I said earlier where a comparison/analogy leads to an emotional response dude. And even though you are right for sure that black people had it bad for a very long time, comparing yourself to their cause is just as insulting because things are not nearly as bad today as it was back then either. 

I know people who couldn't be hired if they found out they were gay and there are instance of people getting the shit kicked out of them for being gay or any other form of LGBT so I disagree with you. Just because it is smaller numbers does not mean it isn't similar. You in fact are disgracing another culture just because you think it is worse. Yes someone can hide being gay, but that is ridiculous logic to say it just doesn't matter as much as someone else's struggles.


----------



## flint757

bob123 said:


> No one's rights were infringed upon. I Really dont understand why everyone is so up in arms about this.
> 
> HE (yes HE) was in a competition for women. Thatd be like a male stripper applying to a female strip club and getting mad for not being hired.
> 
> They have transgender pageants. sHE should go do one of them, because sHE would win all of them.



The topic now has kind of transcended past this pageant and onto social issues and definitions, etc. of similar topic.


----------



## Randy

Can't be bothered to dig through this whole thread but all the HE talk is really disheartening. 

I've known people who were transgender before and (at least the few I've been acquainted with) considered themselves to be the gender they migrated to. Their mindset was there and they just felt like they were born in the wrong body or at least born with the wrong plumbing or whatever. Now, it may not have been what Nimgoble was referring to but what I gathered from his arguments earlier (which I thought were some of the strongest in this thread), there are a LOT of things that factor into what "makes you a boy or a girl" and I, personally, find all of the "HE" this and "HE" that stuff to be pretty offensive.

Irrespective of the debate over the contest (which is now moot anyway), if somebody feels like a certain sex on the inside and they go through that much trouble to coordinate that appearance on the outside, they deserve a little more respect.


----------



## Ben.Last

Randy said:


> Can't be bothered to dig through this whole thread but all the HE talk is really disheartening.
> 
> I've known people who were transgender before and (at least the few I've been acquainted with) considered themselves to be the gender they migrated to. Their mindset was there and they just felt like they were born in the wrong body or at least born with the wrong plumbing or whatever. Now, it may not have been what Nimgoble was referring to but what I gathered from his arguments earlier (which I thought were some of the strongest in this thread), there are a LOT of things that factor into what "makes you a boy or a girl" and I, personally, find all of the "HE" this and "HE" that stuff to be pretty offensive.
> 
> Irrespective of the debate over the contest (which is now moot anyway), if somebody feels like a certain sex on the inside and they go through that much trouble to coordinate that appearance on the outside, they deserve a little more respect.



There's actually surprisingly little "he" talk, considering the topic and venue. Most people, even those of us who disagree with her being in the pageant or her methods to do so, seem pretty accepting of the fact that she's living her life as a woman.


----------



## Randy

Depends how you define "surprisingly little". I prefaced with "can't be bothered to dig through this whole thread" just to cover my ass on some specifics I might've missed but I've been keeping tabs on this one and had the opposite opinion... I'm actually surprised at the very thinly veiled bigotry TBH.


----------



## flint757

Randy said:


> Depends how you define "surprisingly little". I prefaced with "can't be bothered to dig through this whole thread" just to cover my ass on some specifics I might've missed but I've been keeping tabs on this one and had the opposite opinion... I'm actually surprised at the very thinly veiled bigotry TBH.



Ya it is about half and half I'd say. Although in the middle of the thread it really wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now if my memory serves well. 

In terms of the thinly veiled bigotry it feels more like hypocrisy to me which is just as bad. Some of the rebuttals feel like when someone says, "because you live in a first world country you have nothing to complain about", in style like the civil rights stuff. Just because someone had it worse at a point in time does not mean someone else should be ignored.

As a counter argument to something mentioned earlier when it was said that someone can hide being gay, what if someone back in the 60's said you could just put on a coat of white skin so don't worry about us being racist (if that were possible). You'd be offended and find that that is indeed not a fix for the problem, it is barely a band aid (not at all really). Sounds ridiculous doesn't it, but that is what some are basically suggesting for LGBT people.


----------



## Pooluke41

flint757 said:


> As a counter argument to something mentioned earlier when it was said that someone can hide being gay, what if someone back in the 60's said you could just put on a coat of white skin so don't worry about us being racist (if that were possible).



I don't think that they meant that you can hide it. eg: stay in the closet.
I think they meant that it's not a notable trait that you can see. Unless you are told that that person is gay you wouldn't know it. While being black is something you can't hide.

EDIT: I wrote the wrong thing..... Just noticed it this morning..


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Thats not what drakkar was saying at all. He was just saying you cant compare discrimination blacks faced with discrimination lgbt peeps do today.


----------



## flint757

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Thats not what drakkar was saying at all. He was just saying you cant compare discrimination blacks faced with discrimination lgbt peeps do today.



And my point is that doesn't diminish the problem in the slightest...

[EDIT]
That'd also be like saying Jews have suffered far more than black people so that didn't matter either though as another comparisons. Which again would be absolutely ridiculous. When this come to people being treated worse/less than human it does not change the fact that someone is being treated unfairly and perhaps violently abused in many cases.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yeah, its just an offensive thing to say is all.


----------



## flint757

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah, its just an offensive thing to say is all.



Touchy subjects always come across as offensive on both sides usually.


----------



## Ben.Last

Randy said:


> Depends how you define "surprisingly little". I prefaced with "can't be bothered to dig through this whole thread" just to cover my ass on some specifics I might've missed but I've been keeping tabs on this one and had the opposite opinion... I'm actually surprised at the very thinly veiled bigotry TBH.



I'd be interested is knowing what you're considering to be thinly veiled bigotry. 
For the most part, the only statements I've seen bigotry in have been contributed by people who've hopped into the thread, trolled some closed minded crap, then ran.


----------



## flint757

Lern2swim said:


> I'd be interested is knowing what you're considering to be thinly veiled bigotry.
> For the most part, the only statements I've seen bigotry in have been contributed by people who've hopped into the thread, trolled some closed minded crap, then ran.



Ya that is the bulk of it


----------



## bhakan

ghstofperdition said:


> ...I see victories like what this girl achieved be blackened by hate, narrow-mindedness and just plain mean-spiritedness...


I don't think there has really been that much hate in this thread. There have definitely been some insensitive posts (and I in no way condone them), but most people have worded their posts nicely. Saying it in a negative way such as saying " transgender people are freaks and will never in any way be male/female" is hateful and terrible, or saying something with no backing whatsoever (even nicely) is hate, like if someone says "I don't believe black people are as intelligent as white people," but nicely stating that even after a sex change a transgender person still has his/her original chromosomes is not really hateful and the people generally mean well. 

EDIT: just realized the same topic was addressed in the posts directly above mine. If you were only referring to the couple of posts that were blatantly hateful then we are on the same page, so this would be invalid.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

flint757 said:


> This actually matches a post I said earlier where a comparison/analogy leads to an emotional response dude. And even though you are right for sure that black people had it bad for a very long time, comparing yourself to their cause is just as insulting because things are not nearly as bad today as it was back then either.
> 
> I know people who couldn't be hired if they found out they were gay and there are instance of people getting the shit kicked out of them for being gay or any other form of LGBT so I disagree with you. Just because it is smaller numbers does not mean it isn't similar. You in fact are disgracing another culture just because you think it is worse. Yes someone can hide being gay, but that is ridiculous logic to say it just doesn't matter as much as someone else's struggles.



Similar in some ways..yes..but trying to pretend they're on the same level is an out and out lie. I'm not comparing myself to anything..as I've had a pretty good life on both fronts, however my close relatives were actually around during those times and they had it a lot worse. Getting into a fight for being gay is nowhere on the same level.


----------



## flint757

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Similar in some ways..yes..but trying to pretend they're on the same level is an out and out lie. I'm not comparing myself to anything..as I've had a pretty good life on both fronts, however my close relatives were actually around during those times and they had it a lot worse. Getting into a fight for being gay is nowhere on the same level.



That is fair 

By no means do I think they are the same either just that the smaller size doesn't make it any less bad.


----------



## ilyti

Guys, I wish we could all agree that Drak's view on the matter (that it's silly to comparing this issue to the civil rights movement) is completely right. If a gay black man has an opinion on whether being black or being gay is more of a challenge, take it from him. He has first hand experience with both, so his opinion should carry more weight with everyone. :2cents:


----------



## groph

in-pursuit said:


> they can't let them compete because if straight men don't feel safe jerking off while looking at pictures of the contestants, then the entire thing serves no real purpose. FYI, I would probably take her out to dinner and see where it goes from there



This is part of the point I've been trying to make. It's an image contest. It's a celebration or a public spectacle of a beauty standard, of a commodified, plastered-on-billboards-everywhere-image-used-to-sell-products representation of an idealized female form. It has, in my mind and in this sense, NOTHING to do with anything "natural" about being a woman or "natural" femininity or anything of the sort. There are no men in the contest much as there are no matronly looking large women you'd see in the Ukraine mashing potatoes (I'm sure this is an accurate stereotype , Ukranians feel free to pelt me with rotten produce). Going by this logic, it doesn't matter in the least what the rules are, or whether or not a private organization has the right to set its own rules (I think one should, but don't consider things in a vacuum), or anything like that since it's really just about an outward appearance.



Necris said:


> It's odd how she went from being a woman to some sort of fetish object so quickly in this thread.



Perceptive post is perceptive.



xvultures said:


> You mean 100% freak.
> 
> Scary part is he had a dick, then chopped it off and tried to make himself into a girl. But he will *never* be a real woman. So that is the scary part.



Gonna call this one out. Blatant transphobia. Go ahead and have the opinion, but I hope you're aware that calling someone a "freak" isn't a good way to respect someone else's humanity and dignity. 



Painhawg said:


> It's a man. No amount of surgery, chemicals or makeup will change that. We coddle people far too much. This person needs therapy, not a vagina. Do not mistake transgender with homosexuality. There is huge differences there.
> 
> No, the buck should stop within the rules.



Now, I guess one could say that I shouldn't make an example out of Ms. Talackova in the sense that a spectacle was made (in some people's eyes, not mine) out of the Montreal Massacre as a rallying cry for feminism - we shouldn't use Talackova as a "poster boy" for transgendered oppression/repression/disadvantaging/whatever, but this is an example of such oppression. This is the background leading up to this statement, and I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth, if I am then consider this to just be a thinking point: does "coddling" = advocating for oppressed people? IE - are we coddling black people through affirmative action, making sure their lives are cushy and cozy and they're guaranteed a job? That's closer to a description of white people (at least in better economic times, yeah it's harder to find a job now no matter who you are) if anything.




ilyti said:


> I'd like to say one more thing about this: She could have competed in a trans pageant. But she decided to misrepresent herself in the application forms for this pageant, and then this media storm happened, eventually leading to her reinstatement to the competition.
> 
> What is the prevailing view of this situation of the women who compete in trans pageants? Wouldn't they be pissed off that they weren't given the chance first? That this noob came in and manipulated the circumstances to make sure she's the FIRST TRANS IN MISS UNIVERSE!! Again, whether she wins or not, she's basically exactly like Neil Armstrong.



Did she misrepresent herself if there wasn't an option for anything other than male or female in the registration process? I don't think she was being intentionally deceitful - "HAHA, I'M GOING TO GET A SEX CHANGE AND COMPETE IN A BEAUTY PAGEANT JUST TO TROLL THOSE SUCKERS!" I'd think she was being genuine, she identifies as a woman, she got the surgery to look like a woman, she even went as far as to look like the kind of woman who would be in such a pageant; I don't think she was misrepresenting herself. So could a cisperson participate in a trans pageant? Well I guess not, and that's an interesting thing to think about. 



Lern2swim said:


> Which, in my opinion, should be the case. I'm sorry, I'm incredibly open minded, but *to pretend that a transgendered woman is going to appeal to the general audience of this is ludicrous. It's simply not the right venue*. Again, *this ideal that everyone has a right to be included in whatever they want is utterly silly, in my opinion*. I'm a huge proponent of individuals' rights to live their lives as they choose, but what's next? *A furry attempting to take part in the Westminster dog show?* *People who are into pony play trying to get a slot at horse races? Sorry, the universe is not all inclusive and, frankly, that's okay*.



First bolded line - yeah and that's the problem. People are going to be repulsed by a trans person and that's what advocates, trans people and their allies are trying to combat

Second line - yes it is silly, but we're talking about a human body that gives off every impression that it is a female, and one that conforms to the established order of "what men and women find attractive" so in this case it's not an incidence of a beluga whale suing NASA because it can't be a rocket scientist. Your statement sounds like an appeal to slippery slopes. It's not silly for people to want to be included in things on reasonable grounds, now where you draw that line is up for debate, yes.

Third line - that IS a slippery slope, and it also calls into question my objection with the first bolded point. I know these were just examples, but a furry wanting to enter in a dog competition would be met with scorn because everybody thinks furries are fucking weirdos where in reality their sexual practice harms nobody as long as its consensual. No, the universe isn't all inclusive but that's no excuse to be bigoted towards each other over things that are largely beyond the control of individuals in question.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter

groph said:


> a beluga whale suing NASA because it can't be a rocket scientist.


 
I'm curious, did you just think of that?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> (Women can't dunk and are usually not the size of trucks )


 
Big girls need love too .


----------

