Transgenderism

[Vagrant0]

i appreciate Megatarius' gesture, i wished more people in prominent positions'd tell about their sexual preferences or their divine opinion and not be afraid of what people might think. it will not change who they are or what decision they made.

The problem is that:

 

A). it really isn't our business what that person does in the bedroom

B). Preferences don't determine the person, the actions of that person do.

C). Preference is really just a bad word for it since it denotes a choice or something which isn't intrinsic to the person. Affinity is better since it combines both choices and interests with those innate aspects that play a role in sexuality.

D). It only has an impact or importance when someone mentions something which is not normative. Someone proclaiming that they like cookies has less impact than someone who proclaims that they have adopted a diet of dog-turds.

 

As for how all this affects public opinion or the perception of how it might affect their decisions, that's a whole other ball of wax which is rooted in the norms of whatever dominant group is present in that section of society.

 

sorry for my inappropriate use of language. english is not my mother-tongue.

 

i did not want to emphasize on the importance of a "celebrity person" coming out (i wouldn't care myself very much)

and i think we do agree in at least the general idea, since:

 

A.) You are right but on the other hand everyday bedroom-level stories are intertwined with real news in the media, so even though it might not be our business there is certainly some kind curiosity that needs to be adressed in one way or the other.

B.+C.) Of course you are right there. Again I'm very sorry for bad use of language.

D.) I'd like to think of normativity as one of the major errors in human social society. Because there is no "normal person" speaking in social terms. And even if there were I would be the last person to embrace the concept. as for the irrelevance of a person that only voices thoughts along normative borders, i do think we still have to acknowledge them and put that notion of normativity under very thorough scrutiny.

 

i hope i could explain myself a bit better this time

I wasn't trying to single you out, and you shouldn't feel too concerned about the use of words since the same words you used are the ones which 98% of the population would use. I was merely correcting things to be something which is more correct in the broader sense of things.

 

The problem certain groups have with the word "preference" in regard to sexuality is that it implies a willed choice, such as someone chooses what sex they wish to be with in the same way that they would choose what kind of softdrink to order with a meal. Those who are part of the "born this way and nothing can change it, EVER" camp dislike this term since it infringes upon their own personal beliefs of self and gives fuel to those groups who would persecute them because of their "choice" due to it being something "unnatural". The word "affinity" denotes neither nature nor nurture specifically, so does not have this political baggage.

 

As for "normal" yes, you are correct, there is no TRUE normal since everything is relative. But this is different from "normative" in that normative refers only to those criteria which are most common within a given group. The root, norm, is a term referring to a social opinion about what is most often or worthy of aspiration. In this sense I am not saying that it is "normal" not to have a diet of dog turds, but rather than having a diet of dog turds would be something which would likely not fit within the criteria of common or acceptable behavior. Unlike something as vague as the word "normal" norms are something which are usually rather specific to a given group and dictate those behaviors which are believed to promote a safe and prosperous society and those behaviors which are destructive to individuals or the group. But, as norms are dictated socially, and usually by the dominant powers, they can often be prone to dogma and ignorance about what is in the best interest for society. Thankfully though, norms can change or solidify rather quickly as information and exposure replaces that ignorance. The problem however is that that information and exposure MUST be of quality or else the ignorance will only become more deeply rooted in the minds of the group.

 

Senators having to come out of the closet because of acts done to their male aides only serves to stigmatize homosexuals and other persons who are lumped with homosexuals despite making the behavior itself appear more common. In this way, you are correct, more people should be open about their sexuality and feature it as a positive part of themselves, but unfortunately these cases are much less common and much less noticed than some scandal.

[Sarogath]

i think i could not agree any more :D

 

i didnt feel as there were fingers pointed towards me^^, still i found a bit misunderstood and found it necessary (for my own mental well-being) to rephrase or clarify some of my statements

Edited February 17, 2011 by Sarogath

[WizardOfAtlantis]

I would only like to point out that I think, at times, South Park doesn't represent the thing in itself, but rather it represents a Perception of the thing. I wouldn't be too sure that Mr. Garrison was supposed to be portraying the event in this case, but rather a common perception of the event.

 

As the great saying goes, "The menu is not the meal." However, with South Park, at times I think that's purposefully turned back around on itself so that we may see ourselves in the menu's reflection.

[SilverDNA]

Normality = E=m*c² ?

Normality = Energy= Mass*speed of light² (or rumour² * speech speed * prejudices + mass of society)

Sadly Transgenderism often point of prejudices because it is not seen a "normal" by the mass of society.

If something is seen as abnormal is has to be cast out bordered out and be destroyed with utter most lawful ferocious means.

 

A sad way to ru(i)n a society of persons that may enrich them with their different thoughts and way of live and experiences. Often person that are outcast's of society are highly intelligent because they face things "normal" persons not face more than average 2 times in a life time and face and handle challenges that others would run away by any means.

 

There will either a time in future where we learned to accept individualism in society, or we will blow ourselves to pieces.

 

If lawful individualism is not accepted by all society's and has to destroyed, bordered out or cast out, then I vote for immediate destruction of the planet, because evolution of humanity is not necessary any more. ...

... Then humanity has lost it's purpose to be better than it could be.

... Then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be only a shameless fraud.

[Megatarius]

Thanks everyone for your support. I appreciate knowing it's out there.

 

A good portion of the prejudice which exists is only there because people become so attached to their social labels and often remove themselves from the greater society because of those labels they place upon themselves. Not to make light of the issue, but what this and many other things often boil down to is playground mentality:

 

If a child or group of children are off on the side away from everyone else, they won't be included in the games which are being played, and may even be harassed for not belonging. The sentiment is not one of uniformity, but rather the suspicion that because that child or group does not want to interact with the others, it "must" mean that something is wrong with that child or group, or worse, that child or group really means to do "us" harm.

 

This framework applies to most of the prejudice which is not caused by sheer ignorance or misinformation.

 

But It would be insulting to think that this is the only factor at work in this case since the transition between sexes is in itself a very long, painful, and often alienating process. But, if you compare Western and Eastern society models, there is a rather stark contrast between the two, both in how the person is adjusted to their new role and in how society accepts that transition. In the west, even in sex clinics, it is still treated as there being something wrong with the person that medicine and intensive psychotherapy must fix. In the east, it is seen as merely turning a new leaf, what was once one thing is now something different. The problem I think is that most people, especially experts, aren't particularly inclined, or capable in really understanding this aspect of human behavior, and prefer to hold to their own biases and ignorance. In one transcript I read of a group therapy session for transitioning M2F, one of the newer members was encouraged by the "therapist" to break off all connections with their family and friends so that they would have an easier time adjusting to their changes. While I can understand the underlying sentiments toward wanting to avoid identity confusion, I can't disagree more with the idea of encouraging someone to discard any social and moral support (outside the group of course) they might have to get them through what is often a very difficult time. While, to be fair, not all sessions are like this and practices have improved slightly in the last 20 years, this same sort of practice continues and only serves to create a divide between people and encourage a closed group mentality. And this is the real tragedy, those who are charged with trying to help people only think they understand it all and are more apt to play politics and power games than do things right.

 

 

 

Additionally, you should not base social sentiments around a comedy show which exists largely to make fun of anything they can and do it in the most raunchy way they're allowed. You might as well be using Family Guy as an example of a typical American family.

 

Thanks Vagrant. I think your playground mentality idea is spot on.

 

As for South Park, you and I know what it's doing. You and I laugh at the silliness and then go back to real life. But most people don't have the luxury of enough brains to do that. They see it and think "yeah, that's true! We should just be ourselves!" The point is lost on them, and maybe on Trey Parker, that we are being ourselves by changing our bodies. It spreads misconceptions that didn't need to be spread 50 years ago. I wanted to point it out as an example of pop-culture getting us wrong. South Park is at least intelligent enough of a show to point to, whereas Family Guy isn't even worth mentioning in my mind. I've seen disrespectful stuff about us in that show too. It's just stupid though, no higher point.

 

Oh, about the South Park ep. I haven't seen it, but...

 

The infamous South Park about Mr. Garrison getting a sex change is insulting (and I love that show). It's insulting because it gets everything wrong. The main point in the episode is that we shouldn't try to be something we aren't. Any transgendered person would tell you that what's on the outside is not at all what we really are. Now I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Garrison is not a woman. Mr. Garrison is an impulsive twit. That character is funny for his own sake, but not everything he does is a good allegory.

 

Maybe that was kinda the point? Mr. Garrison isn't a woman--mentally or physically--and thus shouldn't try to be one.

 

It was the point, but it's too easily interpreted as saying "all transgendered people". Mr. Garrison the character is one thing, but without a sober portrayal alongside it, all we have is the one skewed view based on wrong information. (South Park has done sober portrayals of gay people, on at least one occasion a man in normal clothes who didn't act like a stereotype said "I'm gay, boys. Do you think I'm a fag?" Just a regular guy saying it.)

 

I would only like to point out that I think, at times, South Park doesn't represent the thing in itself, but rather it represents a Perception of the thing. I wouldn't be too sure that Mr. Garrison was supposed to be portraying the event in this case, but rather a common perception of the event.

 

As the great saying goes, "The menu is not the meal." However, with South Park, at times I think that's purposefully turned back around on itself so that we may see ourselves in the menu's reflection.

 

I couldn't agree more. That's why I like the show despite the fact that it deeply offends me like almost every episode. But most people would just take it literally, and in its literal sense it is very incorrect about us.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Megatarius

[Pushkatu]

My opinion is rather simple regarding this subject. I realy don't mind. What other people do with their personal lives it's not realy my problem. I don't judge and I expect others not to judge me. I live in a country where such things are looked upon like this::blink: For example I can't realy judge my grandparents for thinking such things are bad, becouse they will die believing that. It's the same as telling them there's no God. (I used this just to give an example, I do not intend to start a religious debate, it's forbidden anyway)

They grew up developing a certain perception over the world and I or anyone else will not be able to change the way they think. They are both good people and they would not beat up or curse anyone that has such orientations.

 

I was born male and I feel good in my male skin, if others don't then who am I to judge them? It could have been me. Like you said, our bodies are a mare reflection of what's inside us. You can meat someone with a angelic face, but with a cruel and evil mind behind it.

[TheCalliton]

Human = Human

thats all there is to it

 

sheep = EVIL

that is all there is to it

Edited February 22, 2011 by TheCalliton

[phoneyLogic]

In private I admit, I do mind.

I like my girlfriends intelligent and female. This surprisingly is not an antithesis. Yes, and they also can be clever and good in bed as well. There are way too many stereotypes about genders.

Edited February 22, 2011 by tortured Tomato

[BlackBaron2]

The problem with such mindsets, though, is that transwomen in particular have to deal with the stigma of being "never real" all the time. If it's just a question of finding someone unattractive, that's pretty normal (since everyone has preferences). As long as you don't go around saying a transwoman is not a real woman, or otherwise being a griefer, it's not an issue.

[SilverDNA]

I endorse warmly one book I once read and remembered now, about the subject and problems that comes along with Teansgenderism . For fictional literature it has won a Pulitzer prize in 2003 here the the wiki link to Jeffrey Eugenides Novel Middlesex Edited February 23, 2011 by SilverDNA