Transgender Q&A

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, S:C said:

Would you care to make it a topic?  

 

Probably not .  I doubt there would be any interest in it here  aside from two  other people .

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

 

So if we all contain many incarnations of male lives and many incarnations of female lives. Why be fixated on changing the shape of your body? How is that supposed to make you feel better. Or make you feel more "real you"? 

 

Btw, I'm not trying to condemn any group of people. 

 

I asked the same question to a 'mid-trans' guy in a magic group I was associating  with for a bit ,  his answer was  , "  Because I needed to experience  both in one lifetime ."       < shrug >   I thought that answer was 'fair enough ' . 

[Mark Foote]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:19 AM, Maddie said:

 

The fact that there is so much misunderstanding is the main reason why I wanted to start this thread even though I'm generally a pretty shy person. But yes drag queens are a stage act not an real life identity. 
 

 

Tommy Dorsey was pretty incredible, Buddhist teacher at S. F. Zen Center, former drag performer.

He was very kind to me when I stayed at the Center for a week in '76.  

Ran into him at Hamburger Mary's once, asked him what he was doing there and he said, "oh, you know, burgers and drinks" or something to that effect (Mary's was a LGBTQ watering hole in '80's, in south of Market SF, and I lived in an apartment upstairs).  I think he had a Buddhist rosary on, can't remember if it was around his wrist or his neck, but the juxtaposition of the Buddhist wear and the bar caused me to pose the question.  

 

[Jadespear]

57 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I don't think I'm a cis woman.

 

Does a woman that has had a hysterectomy not count as a real woman to you either. 

 

... I don't care about fancy fashionable terms.  You are born a woman or a man.  Removing the reproductive organs is just removing them, your DNA is still the same.  So, to answer your question - yes a woman who was born a woman but has removed her reproductive organs is still a woman.  She can't change into a man, nor can the vice versa be true.  And there is no changing of this as a fact.  Im not trying to be rude or arrogant or anything, its just that let's call it for what it is, not what people want it to be.  People who change their outward appearance are not the same as ones who do not, and they never will be actual true men or women.

 

...sorry to report - but many people who attempt gender re-assignment end up with many more problematic conditions because their bodies treat everything they do to themselves as wounds.  As in - your body knows that you're messing it up and it tries to heal itself.  Natural ways of living do not require pills and elaborate treatments to exist, or survive, beyond normal basic things like food, water, and shelter. 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

That sounds like gatekeeping and gaslighting. 

 

I'm going to say something and if you find it offensive then its your problem not mine. 

 

I actually agree with that .   ' Say something'  could be anything  and not be offensive at all .  Why get offended over 'something' .

Saying 'something offensive '  is different  ;   subjective / objective .

 

 I would have to change it a bit  though , as I dont expect others to behave as I do , ie   make it an 'I statement '  .

 

' If  I am offended about what someone else says , it was ME that got offended  .... I could choose not to be offended , or take it in any way I choose .'

 

EG .   I might tell a friend they are a dickhead and they might laugh and say  " Yeah .... I am sometimes .'   The exact same statement  ( caused by observation of same behavior ) might cause another (or the same person on a different day )   to be offended, hurt , sad, laugh,  take it quietly, fire it back  .... would I be responsible for all those different potential reactions or is it the person 'reacting' to them ?

 

- yeah , I know I am off topic as this is not a 'transgender' issue but a general one . . . 

[Maddie]

6 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

... I don't care about fancy fashionable terms.  You are born a woman or a man.  Removing the reproductive organs is just removing them, your DNA is still the same.  So, to answer your question - yes a woman who was born a woman but has removed her reproductive organs is still a woman.  She can't change into a man, nor can the vice versa be true.  And there is no changing of this as a fact.  Im not trying to be rude or arrogant or anything, its just that let's call it for what it is, not what people want it to be.  People who change their outward appearance are not the same as ones who do not, and they never will be actual true men or women.

 

...sorry to report - but many people who attempt gender re-assignment end up with many more problematic conditions because their bodies treat everything they do to themselves as wounds.  As in - your body knows that you're messing it up and it tries to heal itself.  Natural ways of living do not require pills and elaborate treatments to exist, or survive, beyond normal basic things like food, water, and shelter. 

 

You seem to be confusing sex and gender. 

[Maddie]

7 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 Im not trying to be rude or arrogant

 

The skill comes naturally then?

Edited April 16 by Maddie

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

I don't think I'm a cis woman.

 

Does a woman that has had a hysterectomy not count as a real woman to you either. 

 

They do to me .....  BUT   ...  two female friends who recently where told they needed one  , refused for that very reason .

 

One said  the doctor suggested all sorts of benefits  no more PM , no more this, no more that .  She was very upset with doctor and declared that was what makes her a woman .

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

 

Perhaps another way to phrase it would be. "if an open discussion makes one's blood boil. Or if an opposite opinion makes you defensive or triggered, know you're defending an ego. And if you're defending an ego you're defending something false. And this can be a sign if one's position is really truthful or it's something devious"

 

Ah , ya lost me now .    Defending something 'devious'   ?  

[snowymountains]

12 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

... I don't care about fancy fashionable terms.  You are born a woman or a man.  Removing the reproductive organs is just removing them, your DNA is still the same.  So, to answer your question - yes a woman who was born a woman but has removed her reproductive organs is still a woman.  She can't change into a man, nor can the vice versa be true.  And there is no changing of this as a fact.  Im not trying to be rude or arrogant or anything, its just that let's call it for what it is, not what people want it to be.  People who change their outward appearance are not the same as ones who do not, and they never will be actual true men or women.

 

...sorry to report - but many people who attempt gender re-assignment end up with many more problematic conditions because their bodies treat everything they do to themselves as wounds.  As in - your body knows that you're messing it up and it tries to heal itself.  Natural ways of living do not require pills and elaborate treatments to exist, or survive, beyond normal basic things like food, water, and shelter. 

 

As you're basing your whole argumentation on sex, then those born intersex are?...

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

 

"doing offencive things" there is no such thing in existence. People may choose to get offended by some things if it threatens their identity. That's all. 

 

The Oxford learners dictionary gives 

 

"rude in a way that causes somebody to feel upset or annoyed because it shows a lack of respect"

 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/offensive_1

 

Which dictionary exactly did you pull your definition from ? Is it from a real dictionary, as in how people use the word, or your own definition?

[Nungali]

19 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

The skill comes naturally then?

 

Will he laugh or be offended at that  ? 

[Mark Foote]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:02 AM, idiot_stimpy said:

 

Suppression/repression vs transcendence is an interesting topic. 

 

Suppression is part of the illusion trying to fight another part of the illusion. Transcendence is seeing through the illusion entirely without needing to do anything. 

 

A belief held onto can cause internal conflict. Internal conflict is not healthy. One part of us holds onto a belief and another part a contradictory belief. We go to war within ourselves. 

 

Spiritual practice shows us we are not our beliefs. We are much deeper than just our thoughts.
 

 

 

Sorry to be so late to the thread!

My experience has been that physical actions of the body can take place without the exercise of will.  Imagine, if you will, the body as the planchette of a ouija board with unseen hands guiding it, and you will have an idea of the experience I am describing.  

 

Or here's Buddhaghosa's description, the famous 5th century C.E. scholar:

The air element that courses through all the limbs and has the characteristic of moving and distending, being founded upon earth, held together by water, and maintained by fire, distends this body. And this body, being distended by the latter kind of air, does not collapse, but stands erect, and being propelled by the other (motile) air, it shows intimation and it flexes and extends and it wriggles the hands and feet, doing so in the postures comprising of walking, standing, sitting and lying down. So this mechanism of elements carries on like a magic trick…

 

(Buddhaghosa, “Visuddhimagga” XI, 92; tr. Bhikku Nanamoli, Buddhist Publication Society pg 360)

 

 

You might think it was a form of auto-hypnosis, the power of suggestion, but there are peculiarities.  Most strikingly, the action that takes place can be in accord with a future that was unknown at the time the action took place, as though things beyond the boundaries of the senses were at play in the action.

 

For years after experiencing such action, I tried to always act through "the motile air", as Buddhaghosa put it.  In the process, I discovered that what I believe can effect action in much the same way--without the direct exercise of volition, wriggling the hands and feet.  What I understand from that is that it's very important to get the beliefs right, and to always be open to new facts and to science.

Our beliefs become our actions, whether we will that to take place or not.  To that extent, we are our beliefs.

 

 

[Taomeow]

Maybe return to the Q&A format Maddie originally proposed?  Personally I have no desire to argue about the subject at all or question anyone's current understanding, I have my own and it wasn't formed at an online forum and won't be changed by an online forum.  So I'd rather ask about things I don't know.  E.g.:

 

In my two native tongues the word "gender" only referred to grammatical categories (yes, we have "male," "female" and "neuter" gender nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and verb forms).  For people there existed only one term -- "sex."  The current usage of gender in the sense of self-identification came into these languages very recently as a phonetical copy of the English word -- a new vocabulary borrowing for a new notion.  I seem to recall it was the case with English too until -- I don't know when. 

 

Q: when did the difference between "sex" and "gender" in humans enter the discourse in the current understanding, and who proposed this usage, and what was it based on? 

[blue eyed snake]

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

... I don't care about fancy fashionable terms.  You are born a woman or a man.  Removing the reproductive organs is just removing them, your DNA is still the same.  So, to answer your question - yes a woman who was born a woman but has removed her reproductive organs is still a woman.  She can't change into a man, nor can the vice versa be true.  And there is no changing of this as a fact.  Im not trying to be rude or arrogant or anything, its just that let's call it for what it is, not what people want it to be.  People who change their outward appearance are not the same as ones who do not, and they never will be actual true men or women.

 

I am a woman, born a woman, all of society regards me as woman

 

but Maddie is more woman then I will ever be. 

Woman is mostly a societal construct whether you like that or not.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

...sorry to report - but many people who attempt gender re-assignment end up with many more problematic conditions because their bodies treat everything they do to themselves as wounds.  As in - your body knows that you're messing it up and it tries to heal itself.  Natural ways of living do not require pills and elaborate treatments to exist, or survive, beyond normal basic things like food, water, and shelter. 

 

 

I would like a good quality source for that, meaning some research.

I know several trans people and as far as I am aware they're doing fine, a lot better then before transitioning.

[Elysium]

39 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 Natural ways of living do not require pills and elaborate treatments to exist, or survive, beyond normal basic things like food, water, and shelter

Shall we never climb Maslows Pyramid in that case? No self-actualization, ever? Just stuck in basic needs? I am hungry, therefore I am, perhaps?

[Maddie]

Sometimes when the world is debating the legitimacy of your existence you just need to have a cup of tea LOL.- the tao of trans chapter 8 ☕ 😌🩷

Edited April 16 by Maddie

[liminal_luke]

A professor of mine in college taught me that sex was something you did with another person and gender referred to maleness or femaleness.  But that was a long time ago.

[blue eyed snake]

I remember that in the seventies my mom talked about being female/femininity being for a large part a social construct.

so that's sometime ago but I am sorry to say names or background elude me.

my memory is failing me lately. 

 

but that the roles of men and women are for a large part constructed form the outside/by society is easily seen,

So much has changed since that time. 

[Mark Foote]

On 4/13/2024 at 3:35 PM, Taomeow said:

 

Not on this specific topic as much as on this among all others I'm not very trusting of the motives of those who promote anything that happens to be fantastically profitable for the medical cartel.  The minds of the recipients of any and all of their offerings are manipulated very skillfully, in every possible area, and I'm not saying all of their offerings are corrupted by ulterior motives (money, power, 'fame and fortune' as a taoist would put it) -- but failing or avoiding to consider them as a factor is IMO a mistake in many cases. 

 

I don't know how sex/gender dysphoria would be different in this respect from a multitude of over-diagnosed, over-treated, mis-treated conditions going hand in hand with a multitude of under-diagnosed, under-treated, and again mis-treated conditions.  I could give a million examples...  For instance, antibiotics resistance is directly responsible for millions of deaths every year, yet research into new antimicrobials has been stagnating for decades, because, to quote a PubMed publication titled "There Is No Market for New Antibiotics,"  "By the early 1980s, private investment in antimicrobial research ebbed as a result of (...) a broader reorientation of private research and development (R&D) towards more focused investment in expensive yet lucrative noncommunicable (e.g., cancer and lifestyle) medications. The decline in private investment was exacerbated by the parallel closure of formerly successful public R&D efforts, as a result of the contemporary political emphasis on privatization and marketplace-oriented research."  In other words, they figured they get more bang for their buck if they invest in chronic conditions requiring continuous indefinite (often lifelong) use of their medications.  No one is interested in financing whatever can be cured by efficient new antimicrobials, hence their nonresearch, nondevelopment, and nonexistence.   (And no media>public outcry despite an incomparably wider population affected.)  Nothing personal -- they just don't care if millions die from this nonresearch and nondevelopment, as long as they can develop something that guarantees repeat customers.  

 

 

Hopefully folks read my comments about progesterone, above.

Dr. John Lee, who I mentioned, went around the country lecturing groups of women about the benefit of topical progesterone for treating osteoporosis among women who were at risk for ovarian or mammarian cancer.  He tried educating the doctors, but because malpractice is defined as not doing what the rest of the doctors are doing (regardless of the science), he didn't have success with that.  So, as he said, "I will educate the women, and they will educate their doctors."

At the time I heard him speak (1995), hormone replacement therapy was all the rage, consisting primarily of estrogen.  As Dr. Lee pointed out, when estrogen is not balanced with progesterone, there's a tendency for it to promote cancer.  And in the northern hemisphere industrialized nations, progesterone production drops off in a woman at menopause, if not before (not so in some other parts of the world).  

Dr. Lee told a story about a husband and wife team of doctors in San Francisco (Dr. Lee had a family practice in Marin for 30 years).  The husband would prescribe estrogen to a woman.  Within a few years, the woman would develop ovarian cancer.  The husband would refer them to his wife for the hysterectomy.  They were making quite good money.

You are right to be suspicious, Tao Meow--of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/13/2024 at 3:35 PM, Taomeow said:

 

Jesus quilt-knitting Christ...

 

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

I bet all your wisdom would fly out the window the moment I asked you to back up your observations with actual arguments. 

 

Simply labeling somebody with bunch of words has no substance to it. Gosh... So childish. 

[Jadespear]

Hey, so - if you actually don't recognize what is true, it still is true.  What you are born as doesn't change.  Great for you if you feel better about yourself for doing whatever to yourself.  Simple facts remain and nothing anyone says or does can change them.  The only reason I bring it up is because I'm tired of hearing these arguments everywhere that make no sense.  No one can change what is objectively true, the facts speak for themselves.  

[Nintendao]

14 hours ago, Jadespear said:

Hey, so - if you actually don't recognize what is true, it still is true.  What you are born as doesn't change.  Great for you if you feel better about yourself for doing whatever to yourself.  Simple facts remain and nothing anyone says or does can change them.  The only reason I bring it up is because I'm tired of hearing these arguments everywhere that make no sense.  No one can change what is objectively true, the facts speak for themselves.  

 

for someone who claims to have manipulated physical reality with your mind, this seems to be a bit limited of a perspective.. 

Edited April 17 by Nintendao

[S:C]

6 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Q: when did the difference between "sex" and "gender" in humans enter the discourse in the current understanding, and who proposed this usage, and what was it based on? 

Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

 

Edited April 17 by S:C
typo

[Salvijus]

6 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

The Oxford learners dictionary gives 

 

"rude in a way that causes somebody to feel upset or annoyed because it shows a lack of respect"

 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/offensive_1

 

Which dictionary exactly did you pull your definition from ? Is it from a real dictionary, as in how people use the word, or your own definition?

I made a mistake here. It's possible to have views that are condemning and hateful in nature indeed. 

 

This didn't cross my mind yesterday because I was talking about people who get triggered by a different opinion when there's nobody judging them. As if a different opinion is somehow the offence to them. And that sort of reaction usually shows ego at play. Fear at play. Sense of threat and protection of something false inside.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Salvijus