Is transgender a lie?

Inkachu said:

I agree that, in a casual or business relationship, it wouldn't really need to be brought into the open, unless the individual chose to.

Not really sure what point you're trying to make with your opening paragraph, but a person's gender is determined by their chromosomes long before birth. XY - male. XX - female. .

Click to expand...

That's not true... women with androgen insensitivity have XY chromosomes but they usually grow up to be sterile females.

I feel the love of Christ in this topic.

Statements like this:

"sick twisted idea born of a debased perverted society"
"These sexual deviates suffer from serious mental disorders."

I feel so welcome.

As to these:

So you have seen a medical study that says shame doesn't work? I'd love to see that.

Click to expand...

Transsexualism will be understood as a chemical imbalance and a birth defect that has rewired the brain to deny the body, and the Transsufferer will be treated with drugs. Not scalpels and drugs.

Click to expand...

I agree. If those who indulge transgenders truly had compassion on them, they would tell them the truth, share the Gospel with them, and stop indulging them.

Click to expand...

I do have something to say. Trans people were historically treated by therapy only. It didn't work. People were descending into deep depression and committing suicide instead of getting cured.

So before recommending "shame" or "sharing the gospel", I recommend you research the history of trans treatment and find yourself some evidence that techniques that very well could drive away trans people might actually work. Techniques like calling us depraved perverts only push trans people out of society and societal rejection just contributes to depression and our already out of control suicide rate.

When I look at my trans friends I see what they are.. I have a male to female trans friend and I see her as a wonderful beautiful female.. I don't think it's as clear cut as some of you wish to think. I wonder if you were born in the body of one sex but knew yes KNEW you were not that sex what you would do.
Trans females are just females as are trans males are just males.

Inkachu said:

Not really sure what point you're trying to make with your opening paragraph, but a person's gender is determined by their chromosomes long before birth. XY - male. XX - female.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is emphatically not true. We have

Androgen insensitivity disorder: (as FireDragon76 said) where an XY individual can end up with a female phenotype (physical appearance).

Swyer syndrome: Like Androgen insensitivity disorder in that an individual with an XY genotype ends up with a female phenotype.

Klinefelter syndrome: An individual has a XXY genotype had as a male phenotype.

Non-Klinefelter XXY: Usually the XXY individual develops a male phenotype, but can develop a female phenotype if the SRY gene is inactive.

Turner Syndrome: An individual has a XO genotype and female phenotype.

XYY Males: As the name indicates, a male has a XYY genotype.

XXX Females: As the name suggests, a male as a XXX genotype.

XO/XY Mosaicism: The individual only has a Y chromosome in some cells; the individual can end up with either phenotypicaly male or phenotypically female depending on the individual.

XX male syndrome: This is when the sex determining region of the Y chromosome crosses over with the X chromosome during meiosis, resulting in an individual with an XX genotype and a male phenotype.

This is only a small sampling of genetic syndromes that can muck with sex determination, and it's leaving out the syndromes or aspects of the syndromes that can lead to ambiguous genitalia.

When this topic comes up people are often inclined to act as if sex determination is something that is easy and simple biologically (XX = female, XY = male) and that it's only those silly transgender people who are ignoring the clarity of biology, but it simple isn't the case that sex determination is easy even within biology.

Reeniee said:

What does the overwhelming majority of the medical community say?

Click to expand...

That I am not a Zebra, no matter how much I insist I am.

The matter is decided by DNA. There is no such thing as transgender. WHether or not people want to act like how other men or women act is a matter of choice, but if they want to act how a society dictates women act it doesn't make them less of a man and vice versa.

selfinflikted said:

This thread is conspicuously lacking some compassion from those who often claim to have the most.

Click to expand...

Some Christians could have been a little nicer in the way they worded things. Nevertheless, Their point remains. I believe transgenderism is a mental disorder, and I mean that in no crude way.

Jesus loves everyone regardless of whether they're straight, gay, lesbian, or anything in between. There is a difference between loving a person and loving their behavior.

abacabb3 said:

That I am not a Zebra, no matter how much I insist I am.

The matter is decided by DNA. There is no such thing as transgender. WHether or not people want to act like how other men or women act is a matter of choice, but if they want to act how a society dictates women act it doesn't make them less of a man and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Why is it important to you to force that label on people?

I'll point you to Devnet's post above, which shows why DNA isn't so clear.

Reeniee said:

However I agree with your sentiment, that in a romantic environment then this could be something that should be brought up, that an individual is trans, to avoid problems at a further stage of the relationship. It just feels like courtesy I guess. I don't know enough about the details of this kind of thing though, so I'm willing to be educated about it.

Click to expand...

For a casual date, in a getting-to-know-you sense there is IMO no obligation. If a trans person goes on such a date and gets a sense on it that the date is hostile to trans people, I don't think there is any necessity to disclose (but perhaps a necessity not to see that person any more). Of course if things seem headed toward a romantic direction, or physical involvement, then I think everyone needs to be open about their situation.

In non-romantic (That's probably not the right word, but I hope you know what I mean) settings a trans individual has no requirement or responsibility to inform others of their background, why would they?

Click to expand...

There are certain situations where it I imagine it would probably be necessary, but not generally for casual acquaintance.

Inkachu said:

XY - male. XX - female.

Click to expand...

It is even more simple than that. Male is the one who supplies the sperm, and female is the one who supplies the egg, in sexual reproduction. That is literally what the sexes are. If you are the source of the egg, you are female. If you are the source of sperm, you are male. If you cannot be the source of either, you are disabled (and no more a different sex than blindness is a different form of visual capacity).

Surgeries and hormone therapies will never change that. If a man decides that he "feels" female and has his penis removed, does he become female? No, he becomes a very troubled man.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Superficially simulating the appearance of a sex no more makes you that sex than does painting a concrete cow make it a viable source of milk.

Those who argue for the 'normalising' of 'transexuality' are not interested in that though. They have an ideology and they will push it because what they want is more important to them than reality.

Paradoxum said:

Why is it important to you to force that label on people?

I'll point you to Devnet's post above, which shows why DNA isn't so clear.

Click to expand...

Those cases in Denvet's post are extremely rare and do not represent all cases

If I am a male, I am a male regardless of what I identify as.

abacabb3 said:

The matter is decided by DNA. There is no such thing as transgender. WHether or not people want to act like how other men or women act is a matter of choice, but if they want to act how a society dictates women act it doesn't make them less of a man and vice versa.

Click to expand...

It's also been stated that, even from a purely genetic standpoint, there can be ambiguity. I don't feel like I need to reiterate Devnet's wonderful post, so I'll just leave it at that.

Beyond that, psychological gender is a complicated thing that isn't mostly biologically determined. Current social conditions make it impossible to know if psychological gender is biologically influenced to any significant degree. No one has all aspects traditionally assigned to masculinity or femininity. Transgender individuals have significantly more aspects traditionally assigned to the opposite biological sex than to their own. That isn't a mental condition, it's just an extreme example of a failure to comport to social expectations regarding gender that are in themselves (the social expectations, I mean) actually psychologically harmful.

Rubiks said:

Those cases in Denvet's post are extremely rare and do not represent all cases

Click to expand...

Even if we assume that this is the case ("extremely rare" isn't exactly specific, so I don't know what you mean), my answer is simple:

So what? If an XX person can be male and an XY person can be female even in extremely rare circumstances, then the whole argument that trans gender people must identify as female if they are XX and male if they are XY because XX always means female and XY always means male is disproven. If even one person can be an XX male or an XY female,* then it doesn't work to argue that trans people must identify as male or female based on their XX or XY status. If XX or XY status doesn't determine gender, then it doesn't determine gender.

*or XO, or XXY, or XYY, or . . .

Rubiks said:

If I am a male, I am a male regardless of what I identify as.

Click to expand...

"Male" is a human defined category.

Devnet said:

"Male" is a human defined category.

Click to expand...

It has some utility if it's assumed to refer solely to biological sex, but if it's assumed to refer to a psychological self-perception, you're absolutely right.

Rubiks said:

If I am a male, I am a male regardless of what I identify as.

Click to expand...

Congrats.

I am female regardless of what you identify me as.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if someone has actually answered this.

But can anyone explain how being transgender is negative to the individual or society?

With the exception that it just gives people another outlet for hate.

Standing_Ultraviolet said:

It has some utility if it's assumed to refer solely to biological sex, but if it's assumed to refer to a psychological self-perception, you're absolutely right.

Click to expand...

One of the things that boggled me when I started taking higher level biology classes is how much the genetically male vs female issue is oversimplified in lower level biology courses. I mean, when I was young, I thought that XX = female and XY = male was a pretty universal thing throughout the species of the world, assuming that the species in question has sexes (i.e. not asexual organisms and not organisms with true hermaphroditism). But holy crackers is that not the case.

Take birds, for example. They don't even have an X or a Y chromosome, but a Z and a W chromosome (ZZ and ZW). At first I thought, "Oh, that just means that Z is like the X and W is like the Y; ZW is just a bird synonym of XY." But no, that isn't the case at all: in birds, ZW is female and ZZ is male!

And then there is the insect X0 sex determination system were females are XX and males are X0 (in that the males have one fewer chromosome than the females).

As you said, the terms male and female have utility when it comes to talking about purely biological sex, but ultimately they're just man defined categories with all kinds of weird exceptions and nuances that we don't generally talk about.

I find it all to be incredibly interesting.

Syd the Human said:

it just gives people another outlet for hate.

Click to expand...

Nailed it.

Paradoxum said:

Why is it important to you to force that label on people?

I'll point you to Devnet's post above, which shows why DNA isn't so clear.

Click to expand...

It's not important to me, it has to do with X and Y chromosomes and hormonal balance. It is indisputable and ignorant to same there is no such thing as males and females. Females are born with a uterus for example, men aren't. It is the epitmoe of ignorance to say otherwise, it is like calling a dog a lion or something like that. Is veritably false.

abacabb3 said:

It is indisputable and ignorant to same there is no such thing as males and females.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who says that. Perhaps you could quote someone?

abacabb3 said:

It's not important to me, it has to do with X and Y chromosomes and hormonal balance. It is indisputable and ignorant to same there is no such thing as males and females. Females are born with a uterus for example, men aren't. It is the epitmoe of ignorance to say otherwise, it is like calling a dog a lion or something like that. Is veritably false.

Click to expand...

Not all females are born with a uterus, and being male is certainly not defined by the lack of a uterus. But I'm assuming you know this, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.