Actually serious on this one.

[Lightningcount]

This is not a joke topic, nor is it any form of "gay bashing." Just looking to get people's opinions.

If someone were to get a sex change, full sex change, would you still consider them a man or a woman? This question comes from the news story about the "pregnant man." First off, he isn't even a he. Its a she who had her breasts reduced, and a penis implant. I seriously got tired of the news making a big deal about a pregnant man. ITS NOT A MAN. The body still produces female hormones, the body still has feminine needs. Just because she looks like a man on the outside, does not mean she is a man.

Does she have the ability to get a girl pregnant. Sterility and fertility problems aside, does this woman have the ability to produce functional semen that can fertilize an egg?

I want to know your opinions on this. I think I have made mine clear lol.

Btw I am not against people getting these types of surgeries. I am just against he misleading of people.

 

[Tathariel]

I would consider them whatever they themselves chose to be.

For the record, however, I always thought that the hype about Pregnant Man was fucking stupid. Have been saying it since I found out about it.
"HE" STILL HAS A VAGINA?!?!?!?!? WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO GET!!!! MEN ARE NOT BORN WITH A WOMB, no matter how many surgery's and treatments, People born with a penis, dont have that VITAL ingredient to make children.

 

[Mr Master]

I see what you're getting at.

When interacting, I tend to consider people as they present themselves to be. That just seems polite.

But when we're talking about the biology, the genetics and plumbing and all that: yeah you have to refer to what they were born as. But "pregnant former-woman" doesn't precisely fit, and besides it doesn't have that punchy headline. At least 80% of the hype on this is because they can sell the story better; it's economics, not science or accuracy. Advertising. It all comes down to money, eventually.

Well, how would YOU phrase it? This person was born a woman, and legally and surgically became a man, prefers to be known as a man, but still unavoidably has female parts. Most accurate headline I can think of is "Transgendered person pregnant," but that seems awkward somehow.

 

[Kawamura]

Man and woman are more terms for gender, at least, I've always thought so. Male and female are more the biological sex.

Females get pregnant, whether they are men, women or some other option. I always think the term 'pregnant man' makes sense. Most men don't get pregnant, because many men are males. Female men, however, can get pregnant. A female, pregnant man would be just that: a pregnant man.

Not all male men, by the way, can get females pregnant. I certainly hope the ability to produce viable offspring isn't what we determine our gender roles by. That would be so... boring.

 

[Mirran]

I have an idea that's similar to yours Kawa. If I'm speaking in terms of biology and science, there are only two sexes as far as I'm concerned, and it cannot be changed by surgery because the differences are so much more than the visible parts. Hormone levels, organ composition, and skeletal structure are all very specific to sex. However, socially/demographically I have no problem with opening up to sexes in a less dualistic sense. It really just depends on how I have to analyze them.

 

[Anansi]

Proof of your gender falls between two things, your ears. Irregardless of what you wish to choose as your gender, society will decide for you and you will be treated as such. It is in how you approach the world and present yourself that you will be judged. For example, there's Buck Angel, a porn star who is a FTM transsexual sees himself as a "Man with a pussy" as he did not have the genital surgery, and that is fine. He is willing to take all that comes with being a man mentally, and as such move forward. It is the flip flopper that blurs this line, the women who will be men when convenient then women again or vice versa.

 

[Kawamura]

I actually don't mind the "flip-flopper", mostly because I see gender as something that's dynamic. Personalities change over lifetimes, why not gender identities? And some people, it's just easier to "switch" because they're somewhere in the middle.

 

[Mr Master]

There's genetics (not currently alterable), there's physiognomy (alterable with surgery or, I suppose, costuming, to a degree), and there's personality (fluid as the wind). You can make a point for clinging to any one of these, and it might be logically valid, but I consider it thusly: go with what the individual desires. It doesn't hurt anything, it might be more annoying if they change up regularly but you also avoid a lot of pointless friction and arguments if you just let them do what they want. Conversely, you get to do what you want, too.

I'd say disclosure would be important when it became relevant; i.e. if things were getting hot and heavy, I can see how you'd at least want to know if your partner is physically what they claim to be (genetics is irrelevant unless you're looking to actually have kids). But beyond that, you're just stressing yourself out worrying about it.

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

One of my friends is in transition. I honestly prefer her as she is now. Seems happier. I never really had the impetus to think about it that hard before.

I'm going to have to say that gender is a societal construct, especially when you look at all the things that are silently pinned to it. If you want to be a woman, be a woman. If you want to be a man, be a man. If you want to be something else entirely, be something else entirely. Your sex is chromosomal, while your gender is in how you present yourself, just like Mr. Master said.

 

[Jaijin]

Ideally, I'll take people as they present themselves. There may be issues for things like athletic competitions where it matters. But in my day to day life, I prefer to let people define themselves as they wish to be defined. I get that my answer might be simplistic. And that there may be other issues to be considered. But luckily, no one put me in charge of solving society's problems. So I get to deal with people one on one.

 

[Mr Master]

But luckily, no one put me in charge of solving society's problems.

Trust me, it's not that great a job. The hours suck and the pay is worse.

 

[Hell_Bent]

I find gender/sex to be a biological myth. Though rare, there are actually women who were born with the XY chromosome who do not have anything else male about their physiology. So, these women's presence in contemporary biology textbooks brings questions to the chromosome argument. And of course, when a man just naturally can't produce semen or a woman who can't give birth, these genetic mutations are seldom held against their gender/sex identity except in arguments like these.

As for athletic competitions? It goes without saying that a woman with Androgen Insensitivity Disorder is barred from competing in all athletic competitions down to the Special Olympics. Speaking of Olympic games, did you know that women were not allowed to fence in the Olympics until recent decades, and were only more recently allowed to compete in sabre fencing? And it's the women's fencing team that was the first to bring America a gold medal in sabre fencing. In many cases, gender divisions are completely arbitrary in athletics and I have yet to figure out why professional mind sports still have them.

Did you know that "female" is believed to be the default sex for all humans? That we're all female in the womb and that whether we turn into males depends on whether the mother's antibodies are strong enough to kill all the male hormones? Did you know that all men have an empty space where a uterus should be? Did you know that, if a man is given a full sex change and hormone treatments before puberty, he will develop completely into a female, albeit a sterile one, while as a woman can never be convincingly transformed into a man?

Of course, this is just human biology. If you want to really blow your mind, try learning about the reproductive behaviors of various marine life and reptiles. Hell, take a look at how all of humanity's most primitive evolutionary predecessors reproduced and keep in mind that we are, in fact, directly descended from algae. Social prejudices, no matter how well established, may seldom be backed by good, hard science.

 

[Kawamura]

I find gender/sex to be a biological myth. Though rare, there are actually women who were born with the XY chromosome who do not have anything else male about their physiology. So, these women's presence in contemporary biology textbooks brings questions to the chromosome argument. And of course, when a man just naturally can't produce semen or a woman who can't give birth, these genetic mutations are seldom held against their gender/sex identity except in arguments like these.

That's why there are multiple ways to referring to females/males. I believe the term for a person with XY is genetic male, even if they display female sexual characteristics. I don't think the ability to produce sexual cells/give birth is not required for an animal to be male or female, so I fail to see how that matters. Or even where the 'myth' part is coming from.

Did you know that "female" is believed to be the default sex for all humans? That we're all female in the womb and that whether we turn into males depends on whether the mother's antibodies are strong enough to kill all the male hormones?

False. All foeti are female until a series of biological processes are triggered by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome.

Did you know that all men have an empty space where a uterus should be?

False. Bodies do not really have "empty spaces".

Did you know that, if a man is given a full sex change and hormone treatments before puberty, he will develop completely into a female, albeit a sterile one,

Completely, eh? What does that even mean?

while as a woman can never be convincingly transformed into a man?

Bullshit. I've met men I wouldn't guess were FTM until they told me. Unless you are talking about some other criteria for "convincing", I'm thinking you're blowing this out your ass.

Of course, this is just human biology. If you want to really blow your mind, try learning about the reproductive behaviors of various marine life and reptiles. Hell, take a look at how all of humanity's most primitive evolutionary predecessors reproduced and keep in mind that we are, in fact, directly descended from algae.

Not sure what this part accomplishes.

Social prejudices, no matter how well established, may seldom be backed by good, hard science.

Not sure what the prejudice was. The athletic bit? Or the fact that we have two biological sexes most of the time?

 

[Hell_Bent]

I'll admit I'm dumbing this down a bit because I made the foolish assumption that no one here would be familiar with the hard sciences. I'm sorry to say I was wrong. You seem to have some familiarity with biology, if I may respectfully say, not enough.

I believe the term for a person with XY is genetic male,

Gross oversimplification. In order to be a genetic male, you have to have an XY chromosome and contain no active Barr bodies in your somatic cell nuclei. That's why someone with Androgyn Insensitivity Disorder is not considered to be a "genetic male" per se but an "anatomical female."

False. All foeti are female until a series of biological processes are triggered by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome.

That's one of the things I oversimplified the most. I did not then nor do I now feel like explaining every single aspect of embryology. Here are a few basics in sex determination, though.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/molec02.html">http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/molec02.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/9/1891.full">http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/9/1891.full</a><!-- m -->

The latter link describes the role of antibodies in sex determination as well as giving concrete definitions for each sex being determined.

False. Bodies do not really have "empty spaces".

Male inguinal canal:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/17075.jpg">http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... /17075.jpg</a><!-- m -->

If you look right where the uterus would be on a woman, you'll see that there's just about room enough for one.

Completely, eh? What does that even mean?

Described in the article on SOX antibodies, which doesn't even seem to require that anything work too well.

Bullshit. I've met men I wouldn't guess were FTM until they told me. Unless you are talking about some other criteria for "convincing", I'm thinking you're blowing this out your ass.

Unfair as it is, if Billy Tipton were to have undergone surgery and hormone treatments, he'd still have been "Babyface Tipton." This is not to undermine anyone's gender identity but simply to show how silly the concept of sex is as a scientific axiom.

Not sure what this part accomplishes.

I mean to show that we did not get here through a binary system of sexual reproduction and we may not even evolve that way.

Not sure what the prejudice was. The athletic bit? Or the fact that we have two biological sexes most of the time?

The binary concept of biological sex goes hand in hand with discrimination in athletics. Now I suggest you read the articles I posted closely, then do some research into reproductive behavior in spiders and fish. Then we can discuss the myths surrounding reproductive behavior in mammals.

 

[Kawamura]

I'll admit I'm dumbing this down a bit because I made the foolish assumption that no one here would be familiar with the hard sciences. I'm sorry to say I was wrong. You seem to have some familiarity with biology, if I may respectfully say, not enough.

Of course not enough. I'm working through physics into chemistry and then biology. As of such, most of the things you mentioned are above my head, which is delightful.

Gross oversimplification. In order to be a genetic male, you have to have an XY chromosome and contain no active Barr bodies in your somatic cell nuclei. That's why someone with Androgyn Insensitivity Disorder is not considered to be a "genetic male" per se but an "anatomical female."

Now this is going to sound like nitpicking, but can't Barr bodies not be active? I never did find the word for what someone who is XXY to be.

That's one of the things I oversimplified the most. I did not then nor do I now feel like explaining every single aspect of embryology. Here are a few basics in sex determination, though.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/molec02.html">http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/ugenital/molec02.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/9/1891.full">http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/9/1891.full</a><!-- m -->

The latter link describes the role of antibodies in sex determination as well as giving concrete definitions for each sex being determined.

I'll have to read that once I'm done with finals. I've already looked over it, and most of the terminology is way over my head. I need to sit down with a dictionary of biological terms and translate.

Male inguinal canal:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency">http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency</a><!-- m --> ... /17075.jpg

If you look right where the uterus would be on a woman, you'll see that there's just about room enough for one.

I looked and I just don't know that I see it. I mean, in the picture, maybe, but I'm so used to seeing the way actual bodies are not the same as anatomy text book examples. I won't say that I'm right, but I'll try and remember this until the day I'm in an actual cadaver lab.

... Of course, then I'm dealing with non-living bodies, so that won't be exactly right, either?

Unfair as it is, if Billy Tipton were to have undergone surgery and hormone treatments, he'd still have been "Babyface Tipton." This is not to undermine anyone's gender identity but simply to show how silly the concept of sex is as a scientific axiom.

This part I'm still not agreeing with. I've seen transguys that look really masculine. Like, I wouldn't know they were born with female sex parts.

I mean to show that we did not get here through a binary system of sexual reproduction and we may not even evolve that way.

The binary concept of biological sex goes hand in hand with discrimination in athletics. Now I suggest you read the articles I posted closely, then do some research into reproductive behavior in spiders and fish. Then we can discuss the myths surrounding reproductive behavior in mammals.

I'm not entirely sure that I would find researching spiders and fish useful. For one thing, sex determination isn't... exactly exciting to me. Except for perhaps the antibodies part.

And for the most part, isn't two sexes roughly right? I mean, we get some variance, but two is roughly the number?