Miss Universe and Transgendered Contestants: A Tricky Social Issue

Originally posted by LurkerLegacy

Originally posted by EvanB
What makes me laugh is that the western world thinks that transgenderism is ubiquitous to the western world and a modern phenomenon...

It is not.. Has been around as long as humans have been around.. It is in fact the west that does not accept transgenders... The native Americans for instance.. They were able to marry and were accepted in the tribes as women.. In India they were even worshiped and had a crude form of sexual reassignment.. Now even in the islamic world transgenders are accepted in society..

But in the so-called all encompassing world of Christianity.. In the religion that states it loves everyone and accepts all... They are shunned... They... As Jesus said" You shut up the Kingdom of God against men... For YOU neither enter YOURSELVES or allow those who are entering in to go in either"...

Hypocrites!

He also said of them"For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness"

He also said"How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"

Before you judge others that God made I suggest you kick your hypocracy to the curb or suffer the fate you judge on these poor people...

edit on 3-4-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

you seem to be under this notion that Christians believe Trannys are created as such.

it would seem that free-will does not exist in your little God breakdown.

you see, the typical Christian view is that its a choice, and there is nothing inherent or natural to this phenomenon at all.

its sort of like a criminal going before a judge and declaring that he was born a bank robber. it conveniently alleviates any and all uncomfortable responsibilities tied to the decision. and i say decision because it is in every way the result of a choice.


and im sick and tired of people lumping in and comparing LBGT to race/racism. when a black man walks into a room he doesnt have to announce to everyone in the room that he is black for them to see this.

however a gay man does. why is that?

the color of your skin is not a preference. your "sexual identity" is.

lets not kid ourselves, this is not rocket science.

edit on 3-4-2012 by LurkerLegacy because: (no reason given)

Apparently, you do not know many, if any gay men or women, but that does not really surprise e me with your post. not all gay men, or women are outwardly identifiable, but then again, many are, there are many in the LGBT community who do not have to say a word for you to know they are homosexual. If you glanced at the picture in the OP, without the knowledge that she had once been a he, could you have told anyone she was transgendered? I have a cousin, he is by biology, black, but unless you knew this, you could not tell. My father is Scottish, he used to work as a teacher on first nation reserves, he was often mistaken for being native himself.

There are numerous medical conditions that can turn a black man white, a white man black, give males, female looking parts, or females, male looking parts, all these are medical problems, the big difference between these, and the transgendered issue are the ability to see the problem, and not physically see the problem. Just because you cannot physically see a problem (by plain sigh or internal imaging) does not mean it does not exist. Technology has come a long way, we are now starting to be able to see, in real time, via MRI technology, how the brain works, and the differences between male, female, young old, sick and healthy brain functions, it would be interesting to know if a transgendered brain thins and acts like the brain of a person "born" into that sex, if it does, then how will the close minded/fundamental/judgmental/radical people masquerading as tolerant and loving Christians react I wonder.

So, if sexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be strait? I am am of course assuming you consider yourself strait. Please tell me why anyone, ANYONE would choose to identify themselves with a segment of society that is so maligned, feared, and lathed by large segments of society and other associated closed minded people?

Originally posted by jeantherapy
Everyone's body matches their brain. They developed in the womb together, and if mom did her job the body and brain will be a healthy match. Almost everyone has something about their body they'd like to change. But you accept it as everyone else does. Engaging in body mutilation of any form is a kind of mental defect and these people fail to acknowledge that their mind is their single most powerful tool. Your brain/mind controls your body, not the other way around. Three hundred years ago there were no gender reassignment surgeries so people either had to just accept reality or live a delusional mentally corrupt lifestyle. Some people feel compelled to eat cigarette ashes, others have to count all their beans before they can eat them. But in the end - everybody has the body they are meant to have when they're born. It's just a fact of life and if you truly love yourself you will not mutilate your only important possession.

You just insulted many mom's out there, many people are born with health problems, that surface immediately or later in life, it has nothing to do with "mommy doing her job". As far as body mutilation, would you say the same about say, tattoos, or piercings? I will now use your own argument against you, while I will agree that the mind is the most powerful tool, what if your brain is telling you that you are the sex that is opposite what your body is, would your mind not win out seeing as it is the strongest tool? There have been forms of "gender re-assignment" surgeries for a lot longer than 300 hundred years, maybe not the way they are done now, but they have been done, though not often by choice, eunuchs have been recorded as far back as 21st century BC.

When you say "people either had to just accept reality or live a delusional mentally corrupt lifestyle", do you mean to say people had to accept reality, or live a by my religious standards, a morally corrupt and deviant lifestyle"? My mother was very sick the last 20 years of her life, maybe it was because she allowed herself to be mutilated 20 years before by allowing he uterus and the 27lb fibrous tumor attached to it to be removed, I mean, heck, she let them cut out her reproductive (sex) organs for crying out loud, you know, if you had not posted your comment, it would never have dawned on me, damn her! Hey, come to think of it, my father is not a man anymore, well, not after he let the doctors hack the cancer out of his reproductive tract, rendering him impotent.

I get the impression from your post you think mental illnesses are not real as they have no physically noticeable or identifiable aspects to them, well, you are wrong, mental illness is real, and that is not to say having a mental illness makes you a crack pot either, many are treatable and treated with great success, and sometimes that includes surgeries and lifestyle changes to keep healthy. By your post, we should all avoid any contact with doctors or health professionals, and be happy with our lot, because we have what we were meant to have when we were born, and dangnamit, we should just be happy with it.

I only have basic knowledge of the reasons why a person is male or female, apart from

the obvious genetalia, chromosomes, XX and XY, and hormones.

So i have a question

Whilst alive having operations, taking hormones, dressing as the opposite sex to which

one is born will possibly make any sex test's ambigious. IF that person died and at a later

date when only the bones survived and for identifaction purposes tests were done on the

bones and the difference in hips etc. What would be the outcome?? And i'm asking this

regarding [male to female] and [female to male]

Why is this thread on ATS?

In fact why do we get loads of threads about Transvestites, Transexuals and Gays on ATS?

Surely these types of threads should go to BTS or straight to the bin!!

reply to post by ~Vixen~

You meet a bunch of new people at a conference. One guy in the back is wearing a "HELLO MY NAME IS Mike Smith Jr." sticker/nametag. You approach this person, and he introduces himself as Larry Smith. You point out his nametag, and he says that the information printed by the convention organizers uses his legal name, however he uses his middle name of Larry because his father was a jerk and he doesn't want to share the same name.

- As you continue your conversation, do you call him Mike, or do you call him Larry?
- Why?

I actually deal with this issue quite often at work.

If I am meeting him at a bar, or sporting event, or through a mutual friend, I honor his wishes and call him whatever he wants.

If I am serving him papers, addressing a letter to him, sending him a billing statement, or listing his name on some report or statement, then I address him by his legal name.

If I don't like him, then I address him by his father's name, and "Jr." just to piss him off.

reply to post by eletheia




The answer is it depends on when they began hormone treatments.. If they took puberty blockers and then took cross gendered hormone treatments.. Then they'll probably show more female characteristics in her bones. This would probably be the case for the woman mentioned in this issue, as the article indicates that she started her transition at 15 years.

Older transsexuals (that transitioned later.. which is true for most of them until about the last ten years.) would probably show male characteristics. Maybe a mix of both of they had been on hormone treatments for decades, as it's considered a possibility that bones will reshape with time. Although you cant do away with some things like hands, but it's probably not impossible that the hips would eventually widen after many multiple years on estrogen. Add to that potential intersex conditions, such as Klinefelter's where those patients can develop wide hips, moreso than would be natural for someone that is just XY.

reply to post by denynothing


Are those who question God in the Bible really wrong or were they merely presented as being wrong since the general mindset is that God can never be wrong? Or perhapes it is people's interpretation of God that is flawed. If God wrote the Bible, it would be infaliable, but if it is infaliable and wrote by God, then it must be a shizophrenic God who on one hand sanctions the shock and awe of cities and the slaughter of millions and favours a form of capital punishment most would consider backwards and barbaric yet on the other hand we have the New Testament which puts away these things and that the things of old are now magickally covered by Christ the Sacrificical King, even though in the Old Testament God prohibits human sacrifice (though sanctions animal sacrifice which is rather disturbing for an all great God). Why should God require any blood to acomplish what God can do regardless? Perhapes God peers through these peculiar concepts and speaks a better truth in Hosea 6:6, Psalm 40:5-6 And Zechariah 4:6 But what for of those not of the orthodox manner of gender?

It has long been thought that before Adam became split into male and female that Adam was both in one, Gen. 2:21-22. This has had both esoteric and exoteric meaning.
In regards to transgenderism, the closest we will probably get to are the Eunuchs mentioned in the Bible, which speaks of different kinds yet dosn't speak against any kind so as long as they live a moral lifestyle...
Isaiah 56:1-12, 56:3-5. And an interesting tidbit by Jesus Matt.19:12.
It is long known that not all Eunuchs were made so against their will, some made the personal choice and some lived as the oposite sex they were born with. The Hijras of India are a good example. Eunuchs could hold places of prestige and could be with the women whereas a normal man was not permited, this meant a Eunuch held the King's trust and violation of this trust could be bookoo trouble. There are also examples of this in the Bible.

It's interesting food for thought and dosn't necesarrily mean a verdict on the issue, but it goes to show that while there are interesting prohibitions, there also seems to be something else going on here in interpretation of the Law which may have exceptions in certain cases. I have heard it say that the prohibition against the wearing of the cloths of the oposite sex may not necessarily be applied to the Third Gender but rather is to be applied to those who are not the Third Gender and who would dress in such manner to be deceptive and engage in activities improper whereas a Third Gender is not doing so to be deceptive and engage in activities improper. The prohibition against self mutilation is a little bit more difficult and has been the subject of a great deal of debate. Some have speculated that this prohibition may refer to self multilation which involves pagan practices and that it may not necessarily be a prohibition against gender reasignment, but as you can imagin, the debate is heated for those where it matters.

There isn't a tricky issue here.

Trans-women are women. PERIOD. And if people don't want to acknowledge that reality, then it's you whose living in a dream world. Get over yourself, and go read up on transgender studies and what they are about. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's not someone confused, it's not someone who are two genders at once. Trans-women are women, should be recognized as women, and therefore, trans-women should be allowed to do the SAME THINGS without any drama or calamity that straight women do.

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights
There isn't a tricky issue here.

Trans-women are women. PERIOD. And if people don't want to acknowledge that reality, then it's you whose living in a dream world. Get over yourself, and go read up on transgender studies and what they are about. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's not someone confused, it's not someone who are two genders at once. Trans-women are women, should be recognized as women, and therefore, trans-women should be allowed to do the SAME THINGS without any drama or calamity that straight women do.

Can they give birth?

Should a trans-woman be allowed to compete in woman's bodybuilding or the WNBA? What if a trans-woman beats up another woman, is it a fair fight? Would it be admissable in court that she used to be a man? Would it be pertinent to the case?

Of course it is a tricky issue, don't try to sugarcoat it, or pretend it is simple.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights
There isn't a tricky issue here.

Trans-women are women. PERIOD. And if people don't want to acknowledge that reality, then it's you whose living in a dream world. Get over yourself, and go read up on transgender studies and what they are about. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's not someone confused, it's not someone who are two genders at once. Trans-women are women, should be recognized as women, and therefore, trans-women should be allowed to do the SAME THINGS without any drama or calamity that straight women do.

Can they give birth?

Should a trans-woman be allowed to compete in woman's bodybuilding or the WNBA? What if a trans-woman beats up another woman, is it a fair fight? Would it be admissable in court that she used to be a man? Would it be pertinent to the case?

Of course it is a tricky issue, don't try to sugarcoat it, or pretend it is simple.

Can they give birth is a pretty ridiculous question. Not all women can give birth for several reasons. That doesn't mean they aren't women.

Yes, trans-women should be allowed to do everything a woman can do. As for a trans-woman beating another woman in a fight, it's a woman on woman fight. Women fight, at least some do, it happens. It's not as if trans-women have super strength and will kill cis-women with one blow to the head.

It's a very simple issue, society complicates it because society has insecurities it can't deal with.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


Wrong, all woman can potentially give birth, barring any physical defects or injuries. There are ZERO trans-woman that can give birth, so it is a valid comparison.

As for allowing a trans-woman to do anything a regular woman can do.... a trans-woman was born a man. She will be bigger, stronger, and have denser muscle tissue than other women. If we allow trans-women to compete in competitive sports such as soccer and basketball and weight-lifting, then pretty soon the sport will be dominated by all trans-women, and we will have to create a new league for "natural" women.

Plus, professional sports have a significant monetary reward for being better than the other competitors. So, a very athletic man, that competes well in college, but doesn't quite make the cut for the pros, could easily dedicate a few years of his life to transitioning to a woman, and then dominate the female sports, and this would obviously be an unfair advantage!

No, it is never simple.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


This is an incredibly tricky issue, don't bastardize an issue that will be debated long after your death. A women has a pubic arch of an average 120 degree, a woman has XX genotype that is expressed with a phenotype of a uterus and a womb. Increased estrogen horomones, mammary glands, and for a lack of a better term a vagina. Now a person can get the estrogen increase, have surgery to get a vagina. But that person will never get a womb, nor will they get a uterus. I'm sorry so no that person is not a woman based on science, psychologically and socially she could be considered one I'll give you that, but not biologically.

Originally posted by eletheia




I only have basic knowledge of the reasons why a person is male or female, apart from

the obvious genetalia, chromosomes, XX and XY, and hormones.

So i have a question

Whilst alive having operations, taking hormones, dressing as the opposite sex to which

one is born will possibly make any sex test's ambigious. IF that person died and at a later

date when only the bones survived and for identifaction purposes tests were done on the

bones and the difference in hips etc. What would be the outcome?? And i'm asking this

regarding [male to female] and [female to male]

The outcome would be one which the "gender is a choice" people would not like

Originally posted by eletheia




I only have basic knowledge of the reasons why a person is male or female, apart from

the obvious genetalia, chromosomes, XX and XY, and hormones.

So i have a question

Whilst alive having operations, taking hormones, dressing as the opposite sex to which

one is born will possibly make any sex test's ambigious. IF that person died and at a later

date when only the bones survived and for identifaction purposes tests were done on the

bones and the difference in hips etc. What would be the outcome?? And i'm asking this

regarding [male to female] and [female to male]

Sexing of skeletons is the realm of biological anthropology. There are several factors that are taken into account when doing so, among those factors are the size of the ribcage, the shape of the hips, the shape of the jaw, specifically the point, the tailbone, and a few other factors.

Most times all of these traits point to a single sex. However, many times, the skeleton exhibits intersexual attributes. A skeleton with narrow hips and a straight tailbone (which points to a male) could also exhibit a single pointed chin (which points to a female).

You know what we would find if we dug up George Washington's bones and discovered he had a females jaw and hips? We would discover that there is evidence that George Washington might have been a transgendered man.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights




Your post is a contradiction..."Quote"

'Trans women are women' and you end your post with 'Trans women' should be allowed to

do the same things that 'straight women' do.

You yourself have pointed ou differences by using the words 'trans women' and 'straight

women'


Transgender is a term that literally means - 'trans' meaning 'crossing'or 'across' and gender is

gender ergo 'transgender' describes someone who is crossing gender boundries.


Without medical intervention the 'trans woman' could not have achieved the desired results

so the most she can ever be is 'trans woman' and never woman

reply to post by getreadyalready


A transwoman probably isn't at any advantage against a woman. Well at least not after a few months. They lose most of their muscle after testosterone decreases to female levels. The muscle then, as you could guess usually wastes away.

It is a tricky issue of the bodybuilding aspect.. I did see one transwoman whcih attempted to. And I honestly don't know in that case.. as bodybuilding competitions aren't typically about strength. I'd say that if she could document that she lost most male muscle mass, and then re-developed it after a length of time on hormones it would then be fair.

In this case I'd say the transwoman is at a disadvantage in the beauty pageant.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by crazydaysandnights

 

Your post is a contradiction..."Quote"

'Trans women are women' and you end your post with 'Trans women' should be allowed to

do the same things that 'straight women' do.

You yourself have pointed ou differences by using the words 'trans women' and 'straight

women'

It isn't contradiction, it is simple ignorance of language.

There are two types of women. ciswoman and transwoman. What the poster is saying is that All women should have the same rights and protections under the law.

Here's a question of the whole transgendered supporting crew.

Because science and technology also can do it if tomorrow I decide get a facial reconstruction and melanin shot when I'm done I am black as black can be and look like an African American.

Here are my questions...

-Do I have the right to call myself an African American?

-Can I claim the injustice done to the black people in the past as if they had been done to me too?

-Do I have the right to be mad or critic people that knows I was born a native american for not accepting me
and refusing to completely forget what you already know to be true and learn a lie just so YOU can be happy???

-Do I have the right to be mad at true african americans because they don't accept me as one of their own???

-If I take DNA test am I going to be a African American?

-Does this give me the right to represent African Americans in any contests?


EVEN if I find a way to mod my DNA in such way that it appears to be from an African American who am I trying to fool in reality the others or myself?


It truly makes me laugh when people walk around living in a box of lies and hope that if they repeat the same lie long enough it'll become true... Then they critic opposition stating they are narrow minded...

reply to post by _R4t_


If that's what you need to live your life happily?

Yes.

Obviously you won't test DNA as African American.

Or maybe you will. DNA tests for race only show common genes, so who's to say you don't have them?

I'm not going to tell you you're not black.

This is a realistic example, as I know some very light skinned black people, and I don't call them white.

Originally posted by _R4t_
Here's a question of the whole transgendered supporting crew.

Because science and technology also can do it if tomorrow I decide get a facial reconstruction and melanin shot when I'm done I am black as black can be and look like an African American.

Here are my questions…

Im going to tackled them one at a time.

-Do I have the right to call myself an African American?

You have the right to call yourself African American right now, if you wish. Skin color has nothing to do with whether or not you are 'African American'. I have two caucasian African American friends from Johannesburg, South Africa that emigrated to San Francisco about 15 years ago. I also have an African American friend that is from Egypt. His family looks more Persian, but had been in Africa for 4 generations before moving to the States.

I think what you are asking is if you can call yourself a Negro, or Black person. The answer would be a resounding yes, because that is what you would be.

-Can I claim the injustice done to the black people in the past as if they had been done to me too?

Indeed.

-Do I have the right to be mad or critic people that knows I was born a native american for not accepting me...

Compound question, two part answer. Firstly..

Yes.

... and refusing to completely forget what you already know to be true and learn a lie just so YOU can be happy???

Why would someone have to forget that you used to be a Native American? You would not -lose- your status as a Native American just because you colored your skin and became black. You would simply be a Black Native American.

-Do I have the right to be mad at true african americans because they don't accept me as one of their own???

Yes, however, you would not be African American, unless you're from African. You would be a Black American.

-If I take DNA test am I going to be a African American?

No, however.. as previously stated.. you aren't an African American unless you come from Africa. What you mean to say is Black. And your DNA will indicate that you are you, and since you are a Black American, you will have the DNA of a Black American. Since it will be your DNA and you are black.

-Does this give me the right to represent African Americans in any contests?

Im begining to sound like a broken record here. You wouldn't be African American. However, would it give you the privilege of the opportunity to represent black people in contests? Yes.

EVEN if I find a way to mod my DNA in such way that it appears to be from an African American who am I trying to fool in reality the others or myself?

That is an answer I cannot give you, as it is a question to which only you have an answer.