Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How transphobic is the UK? Are you transphobic...? Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by officelinebacker)
    I wouldn't say you require surgery.

    Once a person is living as the other sex, is legally recognised as being of the opposite sex, and is known by everybody as being of the opposite sex, then that is what they are.
    Well, I think I'd have used the word gender there rather than sex but, I agree with you; people should be treated according to who and what they are now​ rather than what they were born as.

    The person I'd quoted was saying that whether a person is a man or a woman depends on their body, I was curious to know where they would draw the line between man/woman since physically the line can be quite blurry in places.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Well, I think I'd have used the word gender there rather than sex but, I agree with you; people should be treated according to who and what they are now​ rather than what they were born as.

    The person I'd quoted was saying that whether a person is a man or a woman depends on their body, I was curious to know where they would draw the line between man/woman since physically the line can be quite blurry in places.
    I wouldn't. Gender is mental, sex is physical. A male to female transexual, even if they were still living as male, their gender is still female, yet their sex to other people would be male.

    While their physical sex does change eventually, their mental gender is constant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by officelinebacker)
    I wouldn't. Gender is mental, sex is physical. A male to female transexual, even if they were still living as male, their gender is still female, yet their sex to other people would be male.

    While their physical sex does change eventually, their mental gender is constant.
    I know gender is mental and sex is physical and that their gender is constant.

    When you said "once someone is living as the other sex" that, to me, would seem to require a physical change. I think someone in that situation should be treated according to their gender rather than waiting for their sex to be changed.(once they've come out, obviously)

    Maybe we're talking about different things, I don't know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    I'm curious, at what point would the surgical changes be good enough for you to consider someone to have changed their sex?
    At the point when there is no longer any trace of their previous sex remaining, and they are now completely indistinguishable from someone who was born into the sex that they have chosen.

    It's unlikely that surgery will ever be able to do that though.

    Also, what about people whose physical sex is indeterminate? What do we call them and why?
    I'd just call them "people whose physical sex is indeterminate". Seems clear enough for everyone to understand who we're talking about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    At the point when there is no longer any trace of their previous sex remaining, and they are now completely indistinguishable from someone who was born into the sex that they have chosen.

    It's unlikely that surgery will ever be able to do that though.



    I'd just call them "people whose physical sex is indeterminate". Seems clear enough for everyone to understand who we're talking about.
    Why would someone need to be male or female in every respect before being considered a man or women? What about XX male syndrome, would you consider them to be female/women? The name of the syndrome would seem to indicate that scientifically and medically they are considered male.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Why would someone need to be male or female in every respect before being considered a man or women? What about XX male syndrome, would you consider them to be female/women? The name of the syndrome would seem to indicate that scientifically and medically they are considered male.
    They wouldn't need to be male in every respect. I just said they would need to be indistinguishable from someone who was born male. That is, no matter how closely their body were to be examined, nobody would be able to tell that they used to be female. A person with XX Male Syndrome is not female. They are indistinguishable from someone who was born male (because they were born male). Nobody can tell that they used to be female (because they never have been female).

    Whereas a person who removes his penis, shapes it like a vagina and has lots of oestrogen injections is not female yet. If you put this person in a room full of random people who were all born as female (including perhaps some with chromosomal disorders), and asked a doctor to identify which one has had surgery, they would be able to do so.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    They wouldn't need to be male in every respect. I just said they would need to be indistinguishable from someone who was born male. That is, no matter how closely their body were to be examined, nobody would be able to tell that they used to be female.

    A person with XX Male Syndrome is not female. They are indistinguishable from someone who was born male (because they were born male).
    So if someone can't be reliable distinguished without some kind of medical test then they have changed their sex? By that definition many transwomen today would be female too, particularly the ones who started hormones before puberty.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    So if someone can't be reliable distinguished without some kind of medical test then they have changed their sex? By that definition many transwomen today would be female too, particularly the ones who started hormones before puberty.
    No, I didn't say "without some kind of medical test". They would need to be completely indistinguishable - medical test or not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No, I didn't say "without some kind of medical test". They would need to be completely indistinguishable.
    Well then, someone who is XX male would not be completely indistinguishable since a genetic test would show them to be genetically female.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Well then, someone who is XX male would not be completely indistinguishable since a genetic test would show them to be genetically female.
    They would be indistinguishable from someone who was born male, because they were born male. A doctor wouldn't examine this person's body and say "This person wasn't born with this sort of body, I can be quite sure that they were born into a female body and had it altered to look more male", because that wouldn't be true.

    I'm not saying that they have to rely solely on a particular genetic test. A person is male if there is no physical indicator in existence which could reliably tell you that they used to be female - whether that's looking at their genes, or their brains, or their reproductive system. This is true for the ordinary male, and it is also true for the XX male.


    By the way, an XX male's genes are not the same as a female's genes. Otherwise they wouldn't have been born as XX males, they would have been born as females. A test that was sufficiently exhaustive would not show them as "genetically female".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    Do you mean more than a days growth? That would be a bit surprising.
    enough for me to think "what the ****" and remember it 4 or 5 years later
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    They would be indistinguishable from someone who was born male, because they were born male. A doctor wouldn't examine this person's body and say "This person wasn't born with this sort of body, I can tell that they were born into a female body and had it altered to look more male", because that wouldn't be true.

    I'm not saying that they have to rely solely on a particular genetic test. A person is male if there is no physical indicator in existence which could reliably tell you that they used to be female - whether that's looking at their genes, or their brains, or their reproductive system.
    you seem to be drawing an arbitary line in the sand... 'they have to be indistinguishable from someone born as male.. - except in their genes, because well.. who tests that..


    Looks
    To the general public
    In a medical examination
    After a genetics test

    youve drawn your line before the last one... - others draw it in different places..

    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    enough for me to think "what the ****" and remember it 4 or 5 years later
    There are many things that person could have been, without being transgender:

    They could have been gender queer, or non-binary (someone who doesnt feel either male or female, etc)
    They may have been a particularly bad drag queen
    They may have been a transvestite, out for the day..

    etc .
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    you seem to be drawing an arbitary line in the sand... 'they have to be indistinguishable from someone born as male.. - except in their genes, because well.. who tests that..


    Looks
    To the general public
    In a medical examination
    After a genetics test

    youve drawn your line before the last one... - others draw it in different places.
    I haven't drawn the line anywhere. I haven't said "except in their genes".
    They have to be genetically indistinguishable from someone who was born male as well.

    I would consider a male to have successfully become a female if you could put him in any room full of people who were born female (some of whom may have genetic disorders), and there is absolutely no physical way to identify him as the one who has had the sex change.

    This does not mean XX Males are female. It is always possible to tell the difference between an XX male and someone who was born female.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I've no idea how trans-phobic the UK is but I'm not at all, I fully support anyone to transition to whatever gender they feel they are. Far be it from me to judge them. Once someone is living and identifying themselves as the sex they are choosing to be then that is when I would identify them as that sex.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I haven't drawn the line anywhere. I haven't said "except in their genes".
    They have to be genetically indistinguishable from someone who was born male as well.

    I would consider a male to have successfully become a female if you could put him in any room full of people who were born female (some of whom may have genetic disorders), and there is absolutely no physical way to identify him as the one who has had the sex change.

    This does not mean XX Males are female. It is always possible to tell the difference between an XX male and someone who was born female.
    depends how closely you look..

    With modern sugery, if you were not allowed to touch/poke about.. you would not be able to tell at all.. (for some)

    then again, if there was also a women in that room - who has been very unfortunate to have had a double mastectomy, and uterine cancer --- she would be physically almost identical to the trans person (artificial breasts, no reproductive organs, possibly re-created sexual organs etc)

    She is distinguishable? once again not by looks.. but yes, by examination she is different (in almost identical ways to a trans-women) - is she no longer female?

    By your definition, of there being 'absolutly no way to identify them apart from the females' - no she is not.. infact, she could very very easily be mistaken for a trans women.. (as for some trans women, the only way you could tell is by the lack of reproductive organs)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    depends how closely you look..

    With modern sugery, if you were not allowed to touch/poke about.. you would not be able to tell at all.. (for some)
    Why do we need to add the condition that you are not allowed to touch/poke about though? I'm saying that there should be absolutely no physical way of making the distinction, no matter how closely you look.

    then again, if there was also a women in that room - who has been very unfortunate to have had a double mastectomy, and uterine cancer --- she would be physically almost identical to the trans person (artificial breasts, no reproductive organs, possibly re-created sexual organs etc)
    "Almost identical", perhaps. But it would not be utterly impossible to tell which was which.

    She is distinguishable? once again not by looks.. but yes, by examination she is different (in almost identical ways to a trans-women) - is she no longer female?
    I think you've misunderstood what I mean by "distinguishable". She is not distinguishable. She was born female, and so it is logically impossible for her to be distinguishable from someone who was born female. She cannot be correctly identified as someone who was born male, because she was not born male.

    She might be different from most women. But she is not distinguishable from someone who was born female. No accurate examination would ever lead to the conclusion that she was not born female.

    By your definition, of there being 'absolutly no way to identify them apart from the females' - no she is not.. infact, she could very very easily be mistaken for a trans women.. (as for some trans women, the only way you could tell is by the lack of reproductive organs)
    Sure, she could be mistaken for a trans-woman. But it is not utterly impossible to tell the difference between her, and a trans-woman.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    They would be indistinguishable from someone who was born male, because they were born male.
    By born male, you mean born with enough resemblance to a male that when the doctor looked between the legs he/she went "yep, that's a boy".
    A doctor wouldn't examine this person's body and say "This person wasn't born with this sort of body, I can be quite sure that they were born into a female body and had it altered to look more male", because that wouldn't be true.

    I'm not saying that they have to rely solely on a particular genetic test. A person is male if there is no physical indicator in existence which could reliably tell you that they used to be female - whether that's looking at their genes, or their brains, or their reproductive system. This is true for the ordinary male, and it is also true for the XX male.
    Why not their medical record too? Why would the ability to, in theory, determine whether someone was previously of the opposite sex affect what sex they are now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Why do we need to add the condition that you are not allowed to touch/poke about though? I'm saying that there should be absolutely no physical way of making the distinction.


    "Almost identical", perhaps. But it would not be utterly impossible to tell which was which.

    No, she is not distinguishable. She was born female, and so it is logically impossible for her to be distinguishable from someone who was born female. She cannot be correctly identified as someone who was born male, because she was not born male.



    Sure, she could be mistaken for a trans-woman. But it is not utterly impossible to tell the difference between her, and a trans-woman.
    You seem to be relying to much on absolutes.. 'this must be 100% identical to X, to be X'

    When in reality the world doesnt work or function on such definates. - instead we live in much more of a grey area..

    + she is not distinguishable? in what way? - she is very physically different to the other women? - and is infact much much closer physically to a trans women?

    you seem fixated on this idea that things have to be uterly uterly 100% impossible to tell apart, for something to be considered something..

    This is an incredibly limmited outlook, considering the percentage of people who dont fall in these 100% catagories..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    You seem to be relying to much on absolutes.. 'this must be 100% identical to X, to be X'

    When in reality the world doesnt work or function on such definates. - instead we live in much more of a grey area..

    you seem fixated on this idea that things have to be uterly uterly 100% impossible to tell apart, for something to be considered something..

    This is an incredibly limmited outlook, considering the percentage of people who dont fall in these 100% catagories..
    I disagree - I think such definites do exist in the world, and that everyone falls into such a category. If a person was born physically male, then it's either possible to identify them as such, or it isn't. Everybody who was born physically male falls into one of these two categories.

    Yes, something must be 100% identical to X to be X. Otherwise it isn't X. It's just something similar to X. A person can't claim to be a man if they have physical traits that no men are ever born with, and that many people who aren't men are born with.

    + she is not distinguishable? in what way? - she is very physically different to the other women? - and is infact much much closer physically to a trans women?
    It's not a case of which she is closer to. Given her current physical condition, it is possible (even if it's difficult) to tell which sex she was born into. Therefore she is that sex.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    By born male, you mean born with enough resemblance to a male that when the doctor looked between the legs he/she went "yep, that's a boy".
    No, I don't mean that. I mean born with so much resemblance to a male and so little resemblance to a female that, whether the doctor simply looked between their legs or performed a detailed genetic analysis on them, their sex is not questionable in any way.

    Why not their medical record too?
    Their medical record is not a physical trait of theirs, it's a record of their history. If I'm defining "man" and "woman" to be on the basis of a person's physical nature, then I have to exclude any non-physical manner of determining what sex they used to be. So for example, in a test to identify a person's birth-sex, you can't just go up to them and ask "what sex were you born into?".

    If things were defined based on their history, then it would never be possible for one thing to change into another.

    Why would the ability to, in theory, determine whether someone was previously of the opposite sex affect what sex they are now?
    Because if they still have remnants of their previous sex within them, to the extent that it is physically possible to determine that they were previously of a different sex, then they are not able to blend into the category of people who were born into the sex they have chosen. They still have traits which set them apart from all those who were born into this sex, and which liken them to those who were born into their previous sex. This means their sex change is not a complete success.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.