I feel for Bruce Jenner.

[laughing lioness]

FYI - there have been studies that have found differences in brain structures of male-to-female transsexuals and female-to-male transsexuals.  There have also been studies identifying brain structure differences between homosexual and heterosexual males. 

 

http://www.shb-info.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/3_falgueras_et_al.pdf

 

Looks like we could have a lively exchange of literature, links and research. 

 

Yes, differences between homosexual and heterosexual males- no doubt, the cause of which is certainly open to a value exchange, but clearly a different discussion.

[DesertBlossom]

I think what many actually believe is that what other people do isn't our business if it doesn't hurt us or anyone else.

 

But our actions almost affect other people. His children aren't going to have a father anymore.  Sure, they seem to accept it, but there is pain and hurt that they have to work through and heal from.

[TranquilMind]

No, what people are taking issue with is some believing something is wrong and legislating against it.

 

The disapproval of some should not revoke the rights of others.

What "rights"?  There were no rights to same sex marriage until the last few years? 

Marriage was marriage, period. Everyone had the right to engage it in, assuming of age, and legally competent.   Some people prefer marriage, and some want(ed) to redefine it to mean relationships other than what it has always meant.

 

[luuknam]

But our actions almost affect other people. His children aren't going to have a father anymore.  Sure, they seem to accept it, but there is pain and hurt that they have to work through and heal from.

 

I think it's more important for kids to have loving, involved parents than to have parents of specific genders.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But our actions almost affect other people. His children aren't going to have a father anymore.  Sure, they seem to accept it, but there is pain and hurt that they have to work through and heal from.

 

What if Jenner had been in a society that didn't force him to try and hide himself?  Would this outcome have possibly been different? Obviously we don't know but I would argue that a society where we don't shame people into hiding their feelings about themselves or their attractions will generally lead to fewer situations like this one. (And if someone tries to insert pedophilia into this conversation please understand that I will burn your straw man in front of you.)

 

Heterosexuals do things all the time to harm other people/their families, yet we don't use their infidelities as an argument against heterosexuality.

[TranquilMind]

You don't have to announce to everyone if you disapprove of something. If I disapproved of, say, your avatar, should I let you know? Or would the polite thing be to keep my mouth shut, since it's not hurting other people?

Well, it depends.  Are we having an avatar discussion, about the relative merits and detriments of the usage of avatars?  In that case, you (and she)  should feel free to state that you find some avatars objectionable and on what basis. 

 

You shouldn't be silenced for your avid promotion of avatars any more than you should be silenced or shamed for your distaste of them.   

 

I seriously doubt the poster wanders down the road stopping people everyday to insert her opinion on same sex marriage (or anything else, for that matter). 

 

Why should she be silent here in a discussion about something that is affecting people today? 

[Joanne]

But our actions almost affect other people. His children aren't going to have a father anymore. Sure, they seem to accept it, but there is pain and hurt that they have to work through and heal from.

Yes, the impact on the families and children of trans individuals is significant and should be responded to with informed, therapeutic, and compassionate persons.

[Bluegoat]

Here is what she said:

 

She paired trans and gay people and lol-ed about ALL of the people in both groups that she knew not being "remotely athletic".

 

Being laughed at in sports is a common and painful experience for GLBT kids. I saw that play out not just for my brother but also many friends.

 

Do I think she was intentionally offensive? No. But when telling someone to re-think their assumptions about trans people, it doesn't help to at the same time play into longstanding sterotypes about GLBT people and their supposed lack of athletic ability.

 

We all can probably find something we need to reexamine or rethink from time to time.

 

I don't think she was being intentionally or ununintentionally offensive.  I do not think Binip is silly enough to think that all the gay people in the world are similar to the ones she happens to know.  Why would anyone think that?  That wasn't even implied.

 

All she implied is that steroids could not be an explanation for those people, so why apply it to Bruce Jenner?

[TranquilMind]

What if Jenner had been in a society that didn't force him to try and hide himself?  Would this outcome have possibly been different? Obviously we don't know but I would argue that a society where we don't shame people into hiding their feelings about themselves or their attractions will generally lead to fewer situations like this one. (And if someone tries to insert pedophilia into this conversation please understand that I will burn your straw man in front of you.)

 

Heterosexuals do things all the time to harm other people/their families, yet we don't use their infidelities as an argument against heterosexuality.

No, but we sure do use their infidelities as a warning against the pain they cause to others in the family, when sexuality is exercised unwisely. 

 

(And you cannot unilaterally decide what is relevant in this discussion regarding what sexual orientations are appropriate to pursue and which are not, by the way.  You want there be a straw man, but there actually isn't.  But in the spirit of this particular discussion, it is good to keep the focus on this trans issue). 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What "rights"?  There were no rights to same sex marriage until the last few years? 

Marriage was marriage, period. Everyone had the right to engage it in, assuming of age, and legally competent.   Some people prefer marriage, and some want(ed) to redefine it to mean relationships other than what it has always meant.

 

smh

Let me start with the new "rights" reasoning first. Rights are a social construct so anytime they are granted they are "new".  Women didn't have the right to vote before it was given to us, yet it would be foolish to claim it doesn't/shouldn't exist now because it didn't in the past.

 

Marriage has not always been marriage.  It has changed form over time.  At one time polygamy was accepted.  It isn't now.  At one time interracial marriage wasn't accepted. It is now. 

 

Newsflash: Christians don't own the word marriage.  As Christians, we are free to define it however we choose within our own churches.  That does not mean we have the right to define it for those who don't attend our church.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, but we sure do use their infidelities as a warning against the pain they cause to others in the family, when sexuality is exercised unwisely. 

 

(And you cannot unilaterally decide what is relevant in this discussion regarding what sexual orientations are appropriate to pursue and which are not, by the way.  You want there be a straw man, but there actually isn't.  But in the spirit of this particular discussion, it is good to keep the focus on this trans issue). 

 

On the bolded we agree.  Fortunately it has nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality, or transgenderism.

 

And yes, bringing in pedophilia is a massive straw man as children cannot legally consent to sexual relations and therefore it should not be included in a discussion of sexuality involving consenting adults.

 

[TranquilMind]

smh

Let me start with the new "rights" reasoning first. Rights are a social construct so anytime they are granted they are "new".  Women didn't have the right to vote before it was given to us, yet it would be foolish to claim it doesn't/shouldn't exist now because it didn't in the past.

 

Marriage has not always been marriage.  It has changed form over time.  At one time polygamy was accepted.  It isn't now.  At one time interracial marriage wasn't accepted. It is now. 

 

Newsflash: Christians don't own the word marriage.  As Christians, we are free to define it however we choose within our own churches.  That does not mean we have the right to define it for those who don't attend our church.

These aren't new rights.  Everyone always had the right to marry in this country.  This is something else entirely, changing the character and meaning of marriage itself. 

 

You are making an inappropriate comparison.  The right to vote always existed but was limited to only men at first and later expanded to all of appropriate age, unlike the right to marriage, which was always available to all people of the appropriate age and mental capacity. 

 

In this country, marriage has always been marriage, one man and one woman (though there was the racial stuff, mostly in the south, a matter of skin pigment). 

But we've been down this road before, so I'm going to stop here.

[luuknam]

Well, it depends.  Are we having an avatar discussion, about the relative merits and detriments of the usage of avatars?  In that case, you (and she)  should feel free to state that you find some avatars objectionable and on what basis. 

 

You shouldn't be silenced for your avid promotion of avatars any more than you should be silenced or shamed for your distaste of them.   

 

I seriously doubt the poster wanders down the road stopping people everyday to insert her opinion on same sex marriage (or anything else, for that matter). 

 

Why should she be silent here in a discussion about something that is affecting people today? 

 

In my example, I was actually talking about her specific avatar, rather than about avatars in general.

 

The title of this thread also isn't "let's discuss the pros and cons of trans people".

 

I have no idea what Scarlett does or doesn't do when wandering down the road. I do know that the school bus driver/classroom aide of my then 4yo son felt obligated by her religious beliefs to let me know that she believed our situation wouldn't improve unless we stopped living in sin (or something along those lines). At the time, my wife was unemployed and we were living in poverty. I think she thought we were a lesbian couple. We're not. My wife transitioned from male to female when C was about 6 months old.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

These aren't new rights.  Everyone always had the right to marry in this country.  This is something else entirely, changing the character and meaning of marriage itself. 

 

You are making an inappropriate comparison.  The right to vote always existed but was limited to only men at first and later expanded to all of appropriate age, unlike the right to marriage, which was always available to all people of the appropriate age and mental capacity. 

 

In this country, marriage has always been marriage, one man and one woman (though there was the racial stuff, mostly in the south, a matter of skin pigment). 

But we've been down this road before, so I'm going to stop here.

 

No they didn't.  Slaves didn't have a right to marry.  In recent history, consenting heterosexual adults of different races could be refused a marriage license. 

 

"The right to vote always existed but was limited to only men at first and later expanded to all of appropriate age, unlike the right to marriage, which was always available to all people of the appropriate age and mental capacity. "

 

Wait...the right to vote existed for everyone except for those who couldn't vote? lol

Sorry my friend but you have been burned by your own analogy.  The "right" to vote has been expanded.  The "right" to marry is being expanded.  Sit back and enjoy it - you are watching history unfold. :hurray:

[TranquilMind]

No they didn't.  Slaves didn't have a right to marry.  In recent history, consenting heterosexual adults of different races could be refused a marriage license. 

 

"The right to vote always existed but was limited to only men at first and later expanded to all of appropriate age, unlike the right to marriage, which was always available to all people of the appropriate age and mental capacity. "

 

Wait...the right to vote existed fro everyone except for those who couldn't vote? lol

Sorry my friend but you have been burned by your own analogy.  The "right" to vote has been expanded.  The "right" to marry is being expanded.  Sit back and enjoy it - you are watching history unfold. :hurray:

Nope.  Doesn't work.  The right did not change in character and meaning.  You can keep trying, but I'm out now...have some things to do. 

 

I know I am watching history unfold, for good and ill.  It is all coming to pass. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope.  Doesn't work.  The right remained the same and did not change in character and meaning.  You can keep trying, but I'm out now...have some things to do. 

 

I know I am watching history unfold, for good and ill.  It is all coming to pass. 

 

A marriage still means the union of two consenting adults.

[bibiche]

What if we could find a morally acceptable way to prevent this lifelong struggle for future people? .

 

 

 

I haven't read subsequent posts and I imagine someone has already said this but really... We DO have a morally acceptable way to prevent this struggle and that is to accept people as they are and not try to shame them into being someone that they are not.  WE don't get to decide who someone else is, we only get to decide who we ourselves are. It's as simple as that. Let people come as they are.  The only immoral thing I see in the situation is telling another human being that the way s/he is is not acceptable.

[Scarlett]

You don't have to announce to everyone if you disapprove of something. If I disapproved of, say, your avatar, should I let you know? Or would the polite thing be to keep my mouth shut, since it's not hurting other people?

Are you saying I shouldn't state my opinions in threads like this? Or anywhere? Ever?

[justasque]

We seem to be mixing up some things here - gay and trans, identity and actions, etc.

I won't quote, but a PP said, essentially, "The Bible disapproves of <transgender people>..."  (I'm assuming they meant transgender people as that's the topic of the thread; they used a different, broader term.)  So my question is, for those way more knowledgeable than I, what exactly does the Bible say about transgender folks?  Obviously it doesn't use the term "transgender", but I assume there are passages generally interpreted to apply to such folks?  I know there are some passages referring to homosexual sex, but I'm not familiar with the transgender stuff.  Can anyone speak to this?

[Cottonwood]

I have only skimmed today so I realize this thread may be somewhere else today, but on the criticism of those who are asking if there is a possibility that steroid use had something to do with this........  I think that's a valid question.  Medically valid?  Maybe?  Maybe not..none of us here know for sure, unless we are a medical expert.  None of us are to my knowledge, so who is to say it is or isn't a factor.   But valid from a curiosity point of view?  Sure.   If people are asking the question, it has validity.   In Bruce's case, not valid only because he says he's had these feelings from way early on.  

 

Anyway, who's to say that one type of questioning over another is valid or not?  I personally know how delicate our hormones are (years of issues here)  and keep an open mind to whether or NOT something is affecting them.  This, of course, does not apply to everyone.  Not any person or group has a one size fits all...anything.  So those saying, "My son or daughter identifies this way and that is not the case with them"...well ok.  But that's a very individual experience.  It JUST MIGHT be the case for the next person.

 

I DID question the steroid use thing (until I read that Bruce had these feelings all along) only b/c my dad currently has a friend that is now a female (transitioned about 20 yrs ago) who did NOT feel that way as a youngster, DID use steroids, though only for a short time, and questioned it HIMSELF.  He spent some time feeling tortured because it was a fairly new feeling in his life and he wanted to understand WHY NOW?  He had therapy and finally made peace with it and is living as a woman now...is married, etc.  Just goes to show you that even those IN this situation have varied feelings and themselves have questioned things some of you here have asked some of us to rethink because we ask the question?    It's sad to me that some things here show that some still want to make these things fit in a certain box....from YOUR POV or experience only, and it doesn't.  Even not all transgender people understand what is going on themselves.  How can anyone here ask me to rethink my position or questioning on something?  I might have a lot to learn about something, but that's life.  I don't need to rethink the fact that I am curious about the cause of something and questions come up as a result.  Maybe my curiosity and questioning leads me to learning something valuable about this?  I still think there is a possibility that what we ingest could affect the body that ingested it!  Especially if we take hormones!  My doctor IS HOPING this is the case right now for me (I am in a very uncomfy perimenopausal situation).  Who can say if ingesting hormones would have an unexpected affect on a human?  You?  Me?  No.

 

So many are insisting on tolerance and understanding without showing the same.  But that's the way it's always been, I guess.  

 

The linked piece above with Bruce's 2nd wife ...all the way to Kim Kardashian's interview on The Today show....  and everything I"ve seen in between..  it strikes me how close everyone is. No matter what else I think about them,  I really feel like they want us to know ..not think..but know, they are close and supportive, even before this.  It's impressive to me not become jaded (in this way, anyway) when under such a public eye, pressure and scrutiny.  That's neither here nor there to this discussion...just an observation.  

[Spy Car]

I wish Bruce Jenner well. I believe with his past history as "the world's greatest athlete" that his journey will be especially significant in breaking (and re-making for the better) societal attitudes towards transgendered people. Whatever pain he may experience in the very public transition he faces (and in the years of feeling like he was living a lie) I hope he feels a sense of compensation that he will make life easier for others in the future whose journey would likely have been harder without Bruce Jenner paving a trail.

 

Not many people have the opportunity in their lives to dramatically change the way people relate to whole classes of people. Bruce Jenner has that chance. I wish him the best. I will wish "her" the best when that is Jenner's preference, and I hope the good that comes from opening minds and clearing safer space for others will make the pain pale in comparison.

 

I hope that society grows from seeing that a man many of us (that are old enough) respected as a great Olympic athlete who could compete on the field with anyone, did not feel that he was other than a woman inside. This is confusing for many of us, me included. But what an opportunity to show compassion, kindness, and understanding for Jenner and other transexual people. It is time to grow.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

[luuknam]

Are you saying I shouldn't state my opinions in threads like this? Or anywhere? Ever?

 

Threads like this. Although I'm not real sure why you think it's that important to voice your disapproval, other than to the people you're in charge of raising.

 

ETA: if you started a thread titled "the ethical dilemmas of transgenderism" or something, I'd expect people to be raising these kinds of issues. Okay, I expect them in a thread like this one too, but only because I've learned people will feel the need to voice their disapproval.

[Catwoman]

Are you saying I shouldn't state my opinions in threads like this? Or anywhere? Ever?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you should state your opinions wherever you like.

 

I may not always agree with you, but I do always respect you. :)

[luuknam]

Are you saying I shouldn't state my opinions in threads like this? Or anywhere? Ever?

 

Maybe I'm overreacting though, taking this too personally. But, there is a *reason* for that. I don't know if you've ever lived in fear. Like, really in fear of what would happen if people found out. Fear of losing a job or not being able to find a job. Fear of not being able to feed the kids, just because other people disapprove of choices that don't even affect them (or anyone other than yourself).

 

That's one reason, fwiw, that I'm less inclined to call Bruce's coming out heroic. He doesn't have to worry about money. 

[JuanitaL]

We seem to be mixing up some things here - gay and trans, identity and actions, etc.

 

I won't quote, but a PP said, essentially, "The Bible disapproves of <transgender people>..."  (I'm assuming they meant transgender people as that's the topic of the thread; they used a different, broader term.)  So my question is, for those way more knowledgeable than I, what exactly does the Bible say about transgender folks?  Obviously it doesn't use the term "transgender", but I assume there are passages generally interpreted to apply to such folks?  I know there are some passages referring to homosexual sex, but I'm not familiar with the transgender stuff.  Can anyone speak to this?

 

Great question. (I really can't answer it.) The only thing that immediately came to mind was the bit about not wearing the other sex's garments (maybe that would be more cross-dressing? But wasn't that mentioned earlier in the thread? I get confused with the really long threads sometimes). 

 

 

 

 

 

*I'm currently wearing a men's Fruit of the Loom tagless v-neck t-shirt because it's really comfortable and it was really inexpensive to buy the 4 pack. But at least it's not mixed fibers. 

[Catwoman]

*I'm currently wearing a men's Fruit of the Loom tagless v-neck t-shirt because it's really comfortable and it was really inexpensive to buy the 4 pack. But at least it's not mixed fibers.

Well thank goodness for that.

 

THERE WILL BE NO MIXING OF FIBERS ON THIS THREAD.

 

;)

 

 

.

[JuanitaL]

 

 

 MIXING OF FIBERS ON THIS THREAD.

 

;)

 

 

.

HA!

[dirty ethel rackham]

I have only skimmed today so I realize this thread may be somewhere else today, but on the criticism of those who are asking if there is a possibility that steroid use had something to do with this........  I think that's a valid question.  Medically valid?  Maybe?  Maybe not..none of us here know for sure, unless we are a medical expert.  None of us are to my knowledge, so who is to say it is or isn't a factor.   But valid from a curiosity point of view?  Sure.   If people are asking the question, it has validity.   In Bruce's case, not valid only because he says he's had these feelings from way early on.  

 

Anyway, who's to say that one type of questioning over another is valid or not?  I personally know how delicate our hormones are (years of issues here)  and keep an open mind to whether or NOT something is affecting them.  This, of course, does not apply to everyone.  Not any person or group has a one size fits all...anything.  So those saying, "My son or daughter identifies this way and that is not the case with them"...well ok.  But that's a very individual experience.  It JUST MIGHT be the case for the next person.

 

I DID question the steroid use thing (until I read that Bruce had these feelings all along) only b/c my dad currently has a friend that is now a female (transitioned about 20 yrs ago) who did NOT feel that way as a youngster, DID use steroids, though only for a short time, and questioned it HIMSELF.  He spent some time feeling tortured because it was a fairly new feeling in his life and he wanted to understand WHY NOW?  He had therapy and finally made peace with it and is living as a woman now...is married, etc.  Just goes to show you that even those IN this situation have varied feelings and themselves have questioned things some of you here have asked some of us to rethink because we ask the question?    It's sad to me that some things here show that some still want to make these things fit in a certain box....from YOUR POV or experience only, and it doesn't.  Even not all transgender people understand what is going on themselves.  How can anyone here ask me to rethink my position or questioning on something?  I might have a lot to learn about something, but that's life.  I don't need to rethink the fact that I am curious about the cause of something and questions come up as a result.  Maybe my curiosity and questioning leads me to learning something valuable about this?  I still think there is a possibility that what we ingest could affect the body that ingested it!  Especially if we take hormones!  My doctor IS HOPING this is the case right now for me (I am in a very uncomfy perimenopausal situation).  Who can say if ingesting hormones would have an unexpected affect on a human?  You?  Me?  No.

 

So many are insisting on tolerance and understanding without showing the same.  But that's the way it's always been, I guess.  

 

The linked piece above with Bruce's 2nd wife ...all the way to Kim Kardashian's interview on The Today show....  and everything I"ve seen in between..  it strikes me how close everyone is. No matter what else I think about them,  I really feel like they want us to know ..not think..but know, they are close and supportive, even before this.  It's impressive to me not become jaded (in this way, anyway) when under such a public eye, pressure and scrutiny.  That's neither here nor there to this discussion...just an observation.  

 

Asked and answered.  If steroid use is a significant factor in making someone trans, then why did this happen to my kid?  No steroid use in our household ... ever.  Raised in a household where we use non-toxic, eco-friendly products, try to eat organic as much as possible, use natural, eco-friendly lawn and garden products (when we get around to using anything.) 

 

There is no evidence that steroid use is the cause of transgender.  If it were, there would not have been transgender people before they became available.  If it were, don't you think it would be front page news?  "Yeah, we found the cause.  Now we have a 'cure'."  Nope.  It's not there.  To keep suggesting otherwise is just plain mean.

 

[Murphy101]

I haven't read subsequent posts and I imagine someone has already said this but really... We DO have a morally acceptable way to prevent this struggle and that is to accept people as they are and not try to shame them into being someone that they are not. WE don't get to decide who someone else is, we only get to decide who we ourselves are. It's as simple as that. Let people come as they are. The only immoral thing I see in the situation is telling another human being that the way s/he is is not acceptable.

So if we found out that condition B combined with condition E causes.... Oh let's say children to be born with a leg deformity.

 

Then we found out, if we can (in a morally acceptable manner) reduce the number of incidences that condition E happens and thereby greatly reduce the odds of children being born with that leg deformity.

 

Do you think researching for that discovery and then urging the reduction of condition E to reduce the birth abnormality is saying that we don't love and care for and accept those who have such a condition?

 

I don't think that is the truth at all. It is not an either or paradigm for me.

[umsami]

Asked and answered.  If steroid use is a significant factor in making someone trans, then why did this happen to my kid?  No steroid use in our household ... ever.  Raised in a household where we use non-toxic, eco-friendly products, try to eat organic as much as possible, use natural, eco-friendly lawn and garden products (when we get around to using anything.) 

 

There is no evidence that steroid use is the cause of transgender.  If it were, there would not have been transgender people before they became available.  If it were, don't you think it would be front page news?  "Yeah, we found the cause.  Now we have a 'cure'."  Nope.  It's not there.  To keep suggesting otherwise is just plain mean.

 

 

We'd also see a much higher rate of trans people among bodybuilders, wrestlers, and pro athletes of all stripes.  As far as I know, they do not index higher for gender identity disorders.

[clementine]

Firstly, we haven't found that out re transgender.

 

Secondly, I'm not sure. Parts of deaf culture would strenuously reject what they perceive as deaf genocide via a focus on 'cure'. 

 

Plenty of people have found a 'cure' for Down's Syndrome, via early testing and termination of an affected feutus. Is that acceptable ?

 

It isn't for us to say whether a particular 'condition' should be cured, and thereby eliminated - it's up to the community and culture involved. 

 

What happens if the 'cure' is expensive and only available to some ? How does that impact on societal acceptance of those still not 'cured' ? 

 

What if some of us enjoy the diversity of a community where people are different, sometimes radically so ? What if having that sort of community challenges us all in useful ways ? 

 

What are the implications of a socially homogenous society, in which we are all the same. Is that 100% good ? Or does it lead to a lack of challenge to empathy and understanding ?

 

Whose morals get to determine 'normal' ? What legitimacy do those with the power to develop 'cures' claim ?

 

Is a 'cure' neccessary to relieve suffering ? Acceptance of a transgendered person or child goes a long way to relieving suffering caused by their 'condition' ? So if we don't need a 'cure' to relieve suffering in the 'affected' person, what and who is our 'cure' for ?

 

It's a question that merely raises more questions, it doesn't provide a 'solution'.

 

Excellent post.  

[bibiche]

Thank you, Sadie.  :wub:

[luuknam]

Firstly, we haven't found that out re transgender.

 

Secondly, I'm not sure. Parts of deaf culture would strenuously reject what they perceive as deaf genocide via a focus on 'cure'. 

 

Plenty of people have found a 'cure' for Down's Syndrome, via early testing and termination of an affected feutus. Is that acceptable ?

 

It isn't for us to say whether a particular 'condition' should be cured, and thereby eliminated - it's up to the community and culture involved. 

 

What happens if the 'cure' is expensive and only available to some ? How does that impact on societal acceptance of those still not 'cured' ? 

 

What if some of us enjoy the diversity of a community where people are different, sometimes radically so ? What if having that sort of community challenges us all in useful ways ? 

 

What are the implications of a socially homogenous society, in which we are all the same. Is that 100% good ? Or does it lead to a lack of challenge to empathy and understanding ?

 

Whose morals get to determine 'normal' ? What legitimacy do those with the power to develop 'cures' claim ?

 

Is a 'cure' neccessary to relieve suffering ? Acceptance of a transgendered person or child goes a long way to relieving suffering caused by their 'condition' ? So if we don't need a 'cure' to relieve suffering in the 'affected' person, what and who is our 'cure' for ?

 

It's a question that merely raises more questions, it doesn't provide a 'solution'.

 

I don't think Martha means badly, and to be honest, I think she has a valid point.

 

I'm not going to address everything, but here's a start:

 

Just because some deaf people don't want to be cured, doesn't mean that we shouldn't find a cure for those who do want to be cured.

 

Saying you enjoy the diversity of a community where people are different, sometimes radically so, doesn't mean that those who are different want to be different just for your enjoyment.

 

For those who are transgender and feel the need to change their bodies to match their minds, there is more than just social acceptance that's a problem. Some people want to have kids that are biologically theirs. The hormones and surgeries involved in transitioning tend to have a risk/certainty of becoming infertile. An adult male can bank sperm before transitioning (and an adult female eggs, but that's trickier), but if there is societal acceptance for transgender people we might see more people transitioning before the start of puberty. How do you make the choice for your preadolescent child whether to pursue transition and thus ruining the odds of the child ever having biological kids, or whether not to do that. I realize that there are plenty of people who are unable to have biological kids, and that adoption is a great choice too, etc. My point is just that there is more to transition than societal acceptance.

 

There are also people who fall "between". If you're a 5 on a scale of 10, with 1 being masculine and 10 being feminine, should you transition? What if you're a 4? A 3? Making these decisions can be stressful... it's not like being trans is all rainbows and sunshine and happy happy joy.

[Murphy101]

Firstly, we haven't found that out re transgender.

I didn't say we had. But does that mean we shouldn't look for it? I don't think so. There's many things we don't currently know that I think we should still make an effort to research.

 

Secondly, I'm not sure. Parts of deaf culture would strenuously reject what they perceive as deaf genocide via a focus on 'cure'.

I was not discussing a cure per se. I was discussing prevention. Are you saying that in deaf culture they not only insist on leaving their children deaf when they are born that way (which I'm aware of) but that they would purposely do something while pregnant or prior that they knew could cause their child to be born deaf instead of hearing? Wouldn't surprise me either way bc .. Humans.

 

Plenty of people have found a 'cure' for Down's Syndrome, via early testing and termination of an affected feutus. Is that acceptable ?

No. Because that not a cure, it's just murder. I would not be okay with people deciding their transgender child is better off dead/unborn either.

 

Knowing the contributing causes doesn't always prevent it. It just reduces it. We don't get rid of them (or shouldn't) or deny them love and care when prevention doesn't help in other aspects and wouldn't suggest it for transgender either.

 

Knowing a contributing cause doesn't usually irradiate a development. It just reduces the likelihood.

 

Would you also advocate giving a baby a lead-laced pacifier even though we know lead causes development problems bc you don't want to reduce diversity? I would hope not, but it's the WTM boards...

 

What happens if the 'cure' is expensive and only available to some ? How does that impact on societal acceptance of those still not 'cured' ?

Again, I wasn't even discussing cure. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure for a multitude of reasons.

 

But sure I suspect what is cured will always be market driven in America. Actually I think what is NOT cured is market driven in America. I think the chances of a genuine cure for diabetes is pretty much zero bc being type 1 or 2 diabetic is one hell of a never ending cash cow bigger incentive than a cure is ever likely to be. Don't even get me started.:/

 

Is a 'cure' neccessary to relieve suffering ? Acceptance of a transgendered person or child goes a long way to relieving suffering caused by their 'condition' ? So if we don't need a 'cure' to relieve suffering in the 'affected' person, what and who is our 'cure' for ?

But isn't a sex change a cure effort? An extremely expensive one at that. Isn't the claim that acceptance isn't enough, but that they must change their body to suit what they want to be in their head bc the core problem is they can't accept their own body even if other people do?

 

It's a question that merely raises more questions, it doesn't provide a 'solution'.

Of course it raises more questions. So what? Research always starts with questions. It's how solutions are found.

[Murphy101]

I don't think Martha means badly, and to be honest, I think she has a valid point.

I absolutely do not mean badly. Thank you. :)

[Murphy101]

nm :)

[PeacefulChaos]

I know it's bad form to come in and not have read all of the replies, but that's what I'm doing.  :P  

 

What I'm saying probably won't add to the present conversation, but my initial thoughts on this whole thing:

 

Why is this such a huge media frenzy?  I feel like everywhere I look, I'm seeing stuff about it.  Who cares that much?  Is it news that he's doing this?  I felt like I already knew this, for weeks or months or something...ldk, I don't pay attention that much.  Why are so many news outlets covering his 'big' interview from last week?  No one is actually going to read every.last.article that comes out about this.  There are tons!

 

On top of that, the 'Christian conservative media' has gotten involved (I'm a Christian, so this is not anti-Christian at all) and now a bunch of them are writing about it.  Seriously.  Why?  

 

A FB friend of mine has started up a conversation about Bruce Jenner, in a way... not so much about him, more about 'Christian conservative media' which is coming across very hate-filled and just... icky.  Name calling and such (I had posted something similar about Christian media and Kylie Jenner last week, which came up, too)... it's pretty ugly.  And I hate that.

 

Idk.  I'm not trying to be insensitive or rude or any such thing.  I just don't understand all the hoopla.

[Cottonwood]

Asked and answered.  If steroid use is a significant factor in making someone trans, then why did this happen to my kid?  No steroid use in our household ... ever.  Raised in a household where we use non-toxic, eco-friendly products, try to eat organic as much as possible, use natural, eco-friendly lawn and garden products (when we get around to using anything.) 

 

There is no evidence that steroid use is the cause of transgender.  If it were, there would not have been transgender people before they became available.  If it were, don't you think it would be front page news?  "Yeah, we found the cause.  Now we have a 'cure'."  Nope.  It's not there.  To keep suggesting otherwise is just plain mean.

 

 

All very good points...but I'm not re-asking that question.  I'm saying do not dismiss the validity of it to those that are curious about it. Just as I wouldn't dismiss a question you ask...no matter what *I* think about your question.    The fact that it keeps coming up means people are asking it and to me that gives it some validity.  

 

I am WELL aware that transgender people have been around a very, very long time, before steroids.  I personally never gave it a blanket application either so whether anything external happened to your dd or anyone else, and it means that external issue applied to anyone else means this IS WHERE this originates........I never said it nor do I think it..at all.  I think there are *many*..perhaps thousands ...of potential reasons.  I don't at all think "steroid use is the cause of being transgender" and it feels like you are putting words in my mouth to respond this way to my post.  I said I wondered about it in Bruce's case specifically being a potential cause ..one of many perhaps.  I do realize that if I didn't have a family friend who was trans that questioned it, I may not feel it is valid.  But the truth is, her experience has affected my curiosity.

 

No, there hasn't been proof one way .............OR the OTHER.  We are all really speculating on the steroid thing, one way .......or the other. (medically I mean.  Using logic, I do see the point of what the numbers are showing us re: athletes, body builders).   Who says I can't wonder this though....you (general you, really)?  But you can wonder the opposite without criticism?  Even though in it hasn't been proven that steroids CANNOT cause hormonal issues this way?  That doesn't seem fair.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.  I also have a personal experience with a trans person who ASKED this question for a time, themselves.  If that doesn't give it *some* validity, I guess nothing will. (shrug)

 

Ug...The whole point of my post has been lost here. And I have problems with being too wordy. lol  I don't agree with a lot in this particular thread, but never once have I thought that the opposing ideas or questions didn't have validity, much less posted to others that they can't be curious about something. They may not be valid to my POV but they are obviously valid to the one asking.  Now, to the cruelty veiled as curiosity...that's not what I'm talking about. That's never ok.  But there are genuine questions here that some are trying to say shouldn't be asked, even some I don't agree/align with, but it's not fair to stipulate what is a *valid* curiosity to some one else.  I would not do that to someone else and would like the same courtesy..that's all. 

 

Lastly, I apologize if anything seemed mean.  Not my intention at all.  I think what you *think* I am saying is mean but I'm trying to explain that I think you misunderstood the point of my post.  I actually admire how you said your run your household ..non toxic, organic.  We try to do the same thing. :)

[Χά�ων]

Good grief, I leave the house for a few hours to get some work done and you all get really chatty. If some addressed one of my posts and I miss it, please know I am not ignoring you.

[Catwoman]

Good grief, I leave the house for a few hours to get some work done and you all get really chatty. If some addressed one of my posts and I miss it, please know I am not ignoring you.

It's a nuisance that we no longer get notifications telling us when we have been quoted. I always feel so rude when I realize someone quoted me and I never responded to their post.

[LucyStoner]

But our actions almost affect other people. His children aren't going to have a father anymore. Sure, they seem to accept it, but there is pain and hurt that they have to work through and heal from.

Transitioning is not death.

 

Yes, it is hard to have had a sister and now have a brother instead. But the fact that it was hard for me doesn't mean my brother shouldn't have transitioned. At least for me it was easier to have a happy, healthy brother than a very unhappy and unhealthy sister.

 

On NPR today they were interviewing another woman who transitioned in her 60s while a successful partner at a law firm and she said that when she told her elderly aunt one of the first things her aunt commented on was that, after 60 years, her nervous cough was gone. That her aunt noticed something that she hadn't- that while living as a man, she'd coughed nervously about once a minute. I found that very insightful and rang true to my brother's life. He was finally comfortable in his own skin.

[Halcyon]

So if we found out that condition B combined with condition E causes.... Oh let's say children to be born with a leg deformity.

 

Then we found out, if we can (in a morally acceptable manner) reduce the number of incidences that condition E happens and thereby greatly reduce the odds of children being born with that leg deformity.

 

Do you think researching for that discovery and then urging the reduction of condition E to reduce the birth abnormality is saying that we don't love and care for and accept those who have such a condition?

 

 

You are equating trans people to people who have "deformities". You are saying trans people need to be "corrected". How dare you. Maybe you should look inside yourself and face the fact that you only see certain people as acceptable, "normal", "non-deformed". 

 

You are saying the very person my child IS (let's just say for the moment that he is trans, something I absolutely do not know)--his personality, his quirks, his passion for beauty, his "feminine" sensitivity, his love of long dresses--his very BEING, is a deformity that should be corrected, if possible? Now, I don't know if my son is trans, or gay, or simply gender-fluid. And to be honest, I don't give a rat's ass. It certainly is not a "deformity" that need to be corrected. 

 

You are treading a slippery slope, I fear.

[Audrey]

It's a nuisance that we no longer get notifications telling us when we have been quoted. I always feel so rude when I realize someone quoted me and I never responded to their post.

 

I thought it was just me! 

 

At least I'm not alone. :)

[Audrey]

So if we found out that condition B combined with condition E causes.... Oh let's say children to be born with a leg deformity.

 

Then we found out, if we can (in a morally acceptable manner) reduce the number of incidences that condition E happens and thereby greatly reduce the odds of children being born with that leg deformity.

 

Do you think researching for that discovery and then urging the reduction of condition E to reduce the birth abnormality is saying that we don't love and care for and accept those who have such a condition?

 

I don't think that is the truth at all. It is not an either or paradigm for me.

 

 

You're equating a genetic predisposition with abnormality?  With deformity? 

 

Transgenderedness, and for that matter, homosexuality, is no more an abnormality or deformity than is having blue eyes instead of brown.  Shall we implement preventative measures against non-brown eyed people while we're at it? 

[Scarlett]

You're equating a genetic predisposition with abnormality? With deformity?

 

Transgenderedness, and for that matter, homosexuality, is no more an abnormality or deformity than is having blue eyes instead of brown.

There are two very different lines of thought on it. Is it really impossible to imagine that it is abnormal?

[Halcyon]

There are two very different lines of thought on it. Is it really impossible to imagine that it is abnormal?

 

 

Yes. It really, really is.

[Scarlett]

Yes. It really, really is.

And never the two shall meet. :/

[Guest]

There are two very different lines of thought on it. Is it really impossible to imagine that it is abnormal?

Why is abnormal? Just because it has never been openly accepted?

[Scarlett]

Why is abnormal? Just because it has never been openly accepted?

Or never openly accepted because it is abnormal.

[Abeille]

Or never openly accepted because it is abnormal.

 

But it has been accepted openly in other cultures. A few examples include the Lakota and Cheyenne tribes in North America, the fa'afafines in Samoa, and the hijra in India.