Are transgenders Gay?

[Grenartia]

That's what I thought too.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/93/1/182.abstract

I learned something on NS today and it wasn't just that I hated humanity more than I did yesterday.

Ah, mosaicism. Didn't think of that.

Also, you'll note the terminology in the article you just supplied-- "46,XY mother" and "46,XY daughter". Your source just pwned the fuck out of you.

That sounds very kinky, if I say so myself.

[Des-Bal]

You don't like to think, do you? I probably should have realized you would take the argument at face value, like you have done before. What I was pointing out was that when everyone conforms to what everyone else is doing, change never happens. In our current society there are places where it is perfectly legal to discriminate against trans* people. This is the case because people, like you, don't want to change their views. They want to put every trans* person in a nice tidy little box and sweep it under the rug so they don't have to think about it. Clearly defining, by putting into two categories, people who have gender identities that are different is not only rude, but like I've shown before potentially dangerous. The only real way to get rid of laws that allow discrimination is to change them, in order to change those laws peoples minds need to change.

Right, because expecting clarity in definitions is the same as expecting everyone to conform. The boxes exist, as one persons gender identity really can't be the same as anyone elses shouldn't everyone ,by your logic, have their own separate term? Their own separate classification? Nobody is arguing that, the boxes do exist whether you feel they are too restricting or not they exist and if you can't fit everyone into them they aren't serving their purpose.

[Absurd Ramblings]

It is entirely possible. I know a trans person who felt like a woman who liked women.

This particular scenario is not bloody likely. This scenario has a man undergoing gender correction procedures for the sole purpose of being able to say that he, now she, is a lesbian.

Yeah, it's kind of silly, really. I've called myself a lesbian for years and see no reason to have my junk removed.

[Ryadn]

Ah, mosaicism. Didn't think of that.

Also, you'll note the terminology in the article you just supplied-- "46,XY mother" and "46,XY daughter". Your source just pwned the fuck out of you.

That sounds very kinky, if I say so myself.

Medical journals are wild, man.

[Ryadn]

Dude, I'm on your side, and that's still really hard to find even halfway reasonable. XY females are a tiiiiiiny percentage of the population. There are a ton of tall women with 'hyper feminine' features (your classification of super models today as 'hyper feminine' is an argument in itself). That's not even a reach, it's a swim across the English Channel.

It's hardly a long shot in any sense. Typically women who have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are described as being incredibly gorgeous with knock out figures. It is hardly a stretch to say a number of them would turn to modelling. I'm not going down the line and saying every model has CAIS, but to say it is incredibly difficult to believe that it is possible is quite more of a stretch than to say some of them end up modelling.

You know what other women are incredibly beautiful and have knockout figures? A lot of the 99.995% who don't have CAIS. I mean, really. It's numbers. It's like saying many professional basketball players have Marfan Syndrome because people with Marfan Syndrome are often very tall. There are also a lot of tall people who DON'T have a rare genetic disorder. Has there even been an NBA player with Marfan Syndrome? Probably. Do MOST NBA players have it? No. Apply logic and data to problems, please.

[Lyanna Stark]

It is entirely possible. I know a trans person who felt like a woman who liked women.

This particular scenario is not bloody likely. This scenario has a man undergoing gender correction procedures for the sole purpose of being able to say that he, now she, is a lesbian.

Actually, that can still be likely. Gender identity =/= sexual attraction identity.

[Grenartia]

This particular scenario is not bloody likely. This scenario has a man undergoing gender correction procedures for the sole purpose of being able to say that he, now she, is a lesbian.

Actually, that can still be likely. Gender identity =/= sexual attraction identity.

Milks is not denying that. What we're saying is, is that nobody's gender identity is based on their sexual orientation.

[Zevassa]

Actually, that can still be likely. Gender identity =/= sexual attraction identity.

Milks is not denying that. What we're saying is, is that nobody's gender identity is based on their sexual orientation.

Quoted for truth.

[Socialdemokraterne]

It seems that the truth has already been given: sexual orientation and core gender identity aren't synonymous. And unless you take a step down the ill-fated, long-debunked road of arguing that they are synonymous and that homosexuality and bisexuality are simply defects associated with an improperly assembled gender identification, how on Earth could they be?

[Nation of Fortune]

You know what other women are incredibly beautiful and have knockout figures? A lot of the 99.995% who don't have CAIS. I mean, really. It's numbers. It's like saying many professional basketball players have Marfan Syndrome because people with Marfan Syndrome are often very tall. There are also a lot of tall people who DON'T have a rare genetic disorder. Has there even been an NBA player with Marfan Syndrome? Probably. Do MOST NBA players have it? No. Apply logic and data to problems, please.

Thank you for repackaging what I was saying and throwing it in my face. You sure taught me, considering that was exactly what I was saying. So perhaps you should really read the arguments before you start accusing people of not thinking. This was never any main point of mine any way because there is no data to back it up, I suppose supermodels like their privacy just as much as anyone else. I, as a matter of fact, used it as an argument to display a hypothetical supermodel being forced into a male restroom because her chromosomes said she should be a guy, that was my main interest in the example. I also used it in an attempt, perhaps exaggerating the possible likelihood of them modelling, to illustrate how ridiculous an argument, that says they are males is, by using attraction in a way that would indicate homosexuality to anyone being attracted to a supermodel. I was never saying that all supermodels are XY, I may have implied as much, but never said it.

Right, because expecting clarity in definitions is the same as expecting everyone to conform. The boxes exist, as one persons gender identity really can't be the same as anyone elses shouldn't everyone ,by your logic, have their own separate term? Their own separate classification? Nobody is arguing that, the boxes do exist whether you feel they are too restricting or not they exist and if you can't fit everyone into them they aren't serving their purpose.

I'm saying the whole issue is revolving around peoples need to classify and put people into these boxes. What purpose do they even serve anyway? Why is it even so important to create these boxes? The only real purpose they serve is make people who are afraid of change feel better about their fear of it. Why should anyone care what gender anyone else is anyone is? I mean we can all see how well the beloved gender binary is working anyway. This isn't a thread about women's rights, but pretty much everyone knows the two genders aren't treated equal. If these little boxes didn't exist there wouldn't even be any issue.

[Des-Bal]

[

I'm saying the whole issue is revolving around peoples need to classify and put people into these boxes. What purpose do they even serve anyway? Why is it even so important to create these boxes? The only real purpose they serve is make people who are afraid of change feel better about their fear of it. Why should anyone care what gender anyone else is anyone is? I mean we can all see how well the beloved gender binary is working anyway. This isn't a thread about women's rights, but pretty much everyone knows the two genders aren't treated equal. If these little boxes didn't exist there wouldn't even be any issue.

So your argument is that gender doesn't, or shouldn't exist.

[The Steel Magnolia]

[

I'm saying the whole issue is revolving around peoples need to classify and put people into these boxes. What purpose do they even serve anyway? Why is it even so important to create these boxes? The only real purpose they serve is make people who are afraid of change feel better about their fear of it. Why should anyone care what gender anyone else is anyone is? I mean we can all see how well the beloved gender binary is working anyway. This isn't a thread about women's rights, but pretty much everyone knows the two genders aren't treated equal. If these little boxes didn't exist there wouldn't even be any issue.

So your argument is that gender doesn't, or shouldn't exist.

As a social construct? Why on earth should it?

[Des-Bal]

As a social construct? Why on earth should it?

So coed lockerrooms and such.

[Nation of Fortune]

[

I'm saying the whole issue is revolving around peoples need to classify and put people into these boxes. What purpose do they even serve anyway? Why is it even so important to create these boxes? The only real purpose they serve is make people who are afraid of change feel better about their fear of it. Why should anyone care what gender anyone else is anyone is? I mean we can all see how well the beloved gender binary is working anyway. This isn't a thread about women's rights, but pretty much everyone knows the two genders aren't treated equal. If these little boxes didn't exist there wouldn't even be any issue.

So your argument is that gender doesn't, or shouldn't exist.

The gender binary is quite an unfortunate thing, and doing away with it would solve alot of issues. Letting people sort out their own feelings instead of saying "You are a boy, you like baseball and getting in fights Blah Blah Blah" would quite clearly make this a non issue. However I am not that naive and know better than to just say everything will work out fine in that situation. Alternate solutions have been proposed many times, and I could post the, incredibly played out, genderbread V2 poster. However, like I said it's well played out here and has been posted repeatedly so I will refrain.

[Zevassa]

As a social construct? Why on earth should it?

So coed lockerrooms and such.

I actually find that most locker rooms are fairly unsanitary, especially when it comes to public pools. There's not really a suitable alternative, but I'm opposed to them at all, regardless of my identity/background.

Edit:
Also I don't see a problem with coed locker rooms. The only reason for them existing is because either 1. people are afraid of people finding them attractive/watching them change; or 2. people are afraid of the dreaded sex happening.

The reality is that we already have lesbians and gays in locker rooms, so at this point the concept of a coed locker room really isn't anything beyond the established norm. It's fairly arbitrary.

[Swith Witherward]

A person who identifies as female, whether they have male or female biology, would be heterosexual if they only were attracted to men, homosexual if they were only attracted to women, and bi/pan/asexual if they respectively were attracted to both genders, no gender, or did not experience sexual attraction. Opposite for males.

Someone's genitals do not define their sexuality, but rather, what attractions they experience does. Whether someone has transitioned or not, they should be identified by their preferred gender, not their biological sex.

This image is the easiest way to explain it:

(Image)

That is awesome. Do you mind if I borrow it for another (non NS) project?

[The Steel Magnolia]

As a social construct? Why on earth should it?

So coed lockerrooms and such.

And once again, you conflate sex and gender when they are two separate and different terms.

In any event, I've no issue with coed lockerrooms.

[Zevassa]

So coed lockerrooms and such.

And once again, you conflate sex and gender when they are two separate and different terms.

In any event, I've no issue with coed lockerrooms.

That's why it isn't worth arguing with the guy. As I posted previously, his "scientific analyses" don't tend to match up with his "opinions" -- I'm not saying that science is incorrect, but rather that his inconsistency renders it invalid for his argument. I'd give him credit or put some weight to his opinion if it was consistent/he wasn't contradicting himself.

@Des-Bal: No offense to you or your opinion at all; I just don't think it's worth the argument, and I'm hoping that the others here can reach that realization as well. When you constantly try to use scientific approaches to separate gender/sex/genitalia (which is valid) but then turn around and pretty much express that it doesn't actually mean anything to you/you don't actually see things the same way that you're arguing that you do, then I really don't have anything to say.

I'm not looking to kill the topic or discredit your argument/debate but rather express that a lot of this back and forth has consisted of you saying one thing, then saying something else when it's questioned, and then when your contradictions get pointed out we repeat. Maybe you just need to step away for a bit to recompose your thoughts/stance on things. If you're arguing for the sake of argument then maybe we just need a break, no? E: I just want to point out that you've been at it for 10 pages now.

It's not like either side is going to change their views overnight. Discussion's fine, but this back and forth loop needs to end at some point.

[Grenartia]

And once again, you conflate sex and gender when they are two separate and different terms.

In any event, I've no issue with coed lockerrooms.

That's why it isn't worth arguing with the guy. As I posted previously, his "scientific analyses" don't tend to match up with his "opinions" -- I'm not saying that science is incorrect, but rather that his inconsistency renders it invalid for his argument. I'd give him credit or put some weight to his opinion if it was consistent/he wasn't contradicting himself.

@Des-Bal: No offense to you or your opinion at all; I just don't think it's worth the argument, and I'm hoping that the others here can reach that realization as well. When you constantly try to use scientific approaches to separate gender/sex/genitalia (which is valid) but then turn around and pretty much express that it doesn't actually mean anything to you/you don't actually see things the same way that you're arguing that you do, then I really don't have anything to say.

I'm not looking to kill the topic or discredit your argument/debate but rather express that a lot of this back and forth has consisted of you saying one thing, then saying something else when it's questioned, and then when your contradictions get pointed out we repeat. Maybe you just need to step away for a bit to recompose your thoughts/stance on things. If you're arguing for the sake of argument then maybe we just need a break, no? E: I just want to point out that you've been at it for 10 pages now.

It's not like either side is going to change their views overnight. Discussion's fine, but this back and forth loop needs to end at some point.

If he's already realized he's been proven wrong, but is just sticking to his argument to keep from having to admit he's wrong, I'd respect him a hell of a lot more if he would just admit that he's been proven wrong.

[Death Metal]

Short answer: Some are attracted to the gender they no longer wish to be, but not all of them are.

[Des-Bal]

If he's already realized he's been proven wrong, but is just sticking to his argument to keep from having to admit he's wrong, I'd respect him a hell of a lot more if he would just admit that he's been proven wrong.

My point's already been proven. The only argument against my position is that my terms are unfair and restrictive however now that the truth comes out the only system that's going to make everybody happy is the elimination of gender altogether. So if we don't view anyone as male, female, or anything in between how the hell do we organize those public services those bathrooms that politicians are terrorizing everybody to death? How do we recognize sexuality? The entire thing is absurd, by this logic unless you romantically pursue both males and females and cannot differentiate between the two you are just as bigoted as you're accusing me to be. There are boxes, that's human nature everything has a classification everything has a criteria. Going by genetics is clear-cut it's simple it prevents deciding a man who identifies as a man and was born a man with a soft jawline is a woman. It prevents deciding two natural born men penises and all can have lesbian sex. Why is my way best? Because it's not fucking absurd.

[Dumb Ideologies]

My point's already been proven.

HAHAHAHAHA.

No.

[Freedom Ring]

This thread is a very silly argument. Why should we debate whether tansgender people are gay or not when the answer is clear.

For one thing it doesn't really matter whether they are homosexual are not, they have already altered thier lives and they have the right to be what ever they want to be.

If a man decides to become a woman, and he is attracted to men, then yes he is gay. Biologically he is still male because transgender procedures don't actually remove the penis. The penis can be switched around, hidden or relocated in a number of different way (no one wants it removed, or they won't be able to feel 'pleausure'). The prostate also remains intact, and the skin of the scrotum is used to make *****. The testicles are removed though.
thats perfectly okay, they can be whatever gender they want to, and its thier choice

[Neutraligon]

This thread is a very silly argument. Why should we debate whether tansgender people are gay or not when the answer is clear.

For one thing it doesn't really matter whether they are homosexual are not, they have already altered thier lives and they have the right to be what ever they want to be.

If a man decides to become a woman, and he is attracted to men, then yes he is gay. Biologically he is still male because transgender procedures don't actually remove the penis. The penis can be switched around, hidden or relocated in a number of different way (no one wants it removed, or they won't be able to feel 'pleausure'). The prostate also remains intact, and the skin of the scrotum is used to make *****. The testicles are removed though.
thats perfectly okay, they can be whatever gender they want to, and its thier choice

Someone who identifies as female whether or not they have actually done the surgery is still female, while someone who identifies as male is male whether or not they have done the surgery. If someone who identifies as female is attracted to females then yes they are homosexual. If, however they are attracted to males then they are heterosexual.

[Des-Bal]

Someone who identifies as female whether or not they have actually done the surgery is still female, while someone who identifies as male is male whether or not they have done the surgery. If someone who identifies as female is attracted to females then yes they are homosexual. If, however they are attracted to males then they are heterosexual.

Which means if two men who appear totally male, are genetically totally male, and were born totally male they can have lesbian sex.