Can they be both or neither? Or some other definition? Do we need to define them at all?
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
Do Guevedoces fit your definition of being born in the wrong body or not. If not, why not?
Two positives don’t make a negative?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
But 3 lefts do.
Are unicorns the new black swans?
No, they both are rather well defined, and those definitions are rather different.
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
It’s a medical condition whereby the body doesn’t produce the hormones the brain requires in order to function normally leading to life-threatening symptoms such as depression, dissociation, etc. This can cause severe social problems and sometimes ends with suicide.
Do all people who have whatever hormonal condition you're referring to tend to gender dysphoria and depression etc? Or just some? Do all people who tend to gender dysphoria have whatever hormonal condition? Or just some? Answer: just some. So can we take the "medical condition" bit out of it? It might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best - ie makes people happier with their lives - can be investigated empirically and that's what matters, not endocrine whatever.
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
Not easily - no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it's actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, 'rejection' of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality - that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being - all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That's very real.
So it's a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.
So can we take the “medical condition” bit out of it?
Gender dysphoria is a medical condition.
Being born in the wrong body isn't. However, it's a phrase commonly used by people with gender dysphoria to describe their condition.
If there is some other definition you want to use for 'being born in the wrong body' then go ahead but for us to discuss it you'll have to define exactly what you mean by it.
Cougar
Full Member
That’s just roundaboutery.
👏👏👏
Not easily – no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it’s actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, ‘rejection’ of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality – that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being – all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That’s very real.
So it’s a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.
Ok this makes the most sense, I think I 100% agree with this.. And is what I have wanted to drag out since the beginning.
Hence my original statement, one cannot be born in the wrong body, feels right, because, the statement actually has no meaning. Hence no evidence.
But - one can reject the idea of a gendered body and appearance etc. There is loads of evidence for this i.e. all the people who have gender dysphoria and other associated conditions. Do we all agree about that?
@brucewee - I can't define it, I don't think it is definable, hence why I have been rejecting it all along.
t might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best – ie makes people happier with their lives – can be investigated empirically and that’s what matters, not endocrine whatever.
Johnx agree also.
Gender dysphoria is a medical condition
It's a "term to describe a sense of unease"
It’s a “term to describe a sense of unease”
It has diagnosis criteria. It has medical treatment. Left untreated it can lead to people killing themselves so I'm comfortable calling it a medical condition.
Up until 2013 it was called gender identity disorder but that was changed because of the stigma attached to the word disorder.
It seems that by trying to reduce the stigma that has made it a non-disease in your eyes. Trans people just can't catch a break, can they?
Anyway, I don't think anyone wanted 'being born in the wrong body' to be rigidly classed and defined. It's just a way for people suffering from gender dysphoria to try to describe what it feels like.
However, since it's being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.
However, since it’s being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.
It has been weaponised by everyone, hence why I want it to be sorted out. It has always had a nonsense value and I don't think it serves the people who experience gender dysphoria.
It has been weaponised by everyone,
No, it started as a way for people with gender dysphoria to explain the condition in a way that non-sufferers could relate to.
Then the demands came to 'define' it rather than just try to understand it. From there it was used as a way to try to discredit gender dysphoria in general.
If you can explain how both sides weaponised the term I'd be interested in hearing how, exactly.
It seems impossible to talk about anything on here without you lot getting irritated.
You just seem to think I am "anti trans" or even a "transphobe" just because I am interested in understanding it.
It seems impossible to talk about anything on here without you lot getting irritated.
If I'm getting irritated it's only because I'm asking you questions which you refuse to answer and say I'm calling you a transphobe.
I'm not calling you a transphobe, I'm just interested in understanding.
You just seem to think I am “anti trans” or even a “transphobe” just because I am interested in understanding it.
I'm calling you a transphobe. I don't care if you identify as an impartial scientific observer who's trying to understand it, you can do what you like in your home.
Sorry, I don't make the rules, I think we just have to judge people on what we reckon we can see, and ignore how the individual thinks of themsleves. Have I got that right? It's just a label isn't it, so doesn't have any impact on how you feel so what's the problem?
(maybe you're not a transphobe. I don't know.Who do I check with? Russel Brand or Russel Howard was it?)
It’s a “term to describe a sense of unease”
It has diagnosis criteria. It has medical treatment. Left untreated it can lead to people killing themselves so I’m comfortable calling it a medical condition.
The quote is from the NHS website. It can lead to a medical diagnosis but need not do so. The point of self identification - which for what my opinion is worth I consider a healthy development - is that you don't need doctors to put you in a gender box.
Hence my original statement, one cannot be born in the wrong body, feels right, because, the statement actually has no meaning. Hence no evidence.
Oh come now. This is just arguing about language. Like, the police have just shot a black guy and you're picking at whether or not he should be referred to as a person of colour.
You may be correct that the phrase doesn't help people who are affected by, well, any manner of things that might be handwaved as "born in the wrong body." I honestly don't know and it's not really down to me - or you - to decide that one way or the other.
Because you see, this is part of the problem. It's not about us. Wanting to understand is fantastic and discussions like this are hopefully helpful. But no-one owes you an explanation, it's simply not your business any more than your opinion on abortion rights or gay discos matter.
If I were trans or non-binary or whatever I expect that I would be very, very tired of this shit. It's hard enough being vegetarian in a world full of defensive omnivores. In situations where I'm eating out I sometimes say I'm vegan these days, I'm not vegan but it's a much faster explanation which elicits less cross-examination so I get to eat my dinner in peace. "Born in the wrong body" may well be similar shorthand.
You just seem to think I am “anti trans” or even a “transphobe” just because I am interested in understanding it.
That's not what he said.
No, they said they just wanted to use another term for the exact same condition. They’re not transphobic no, not at all.
I wonder whether the number of cases of gender dysphoria will decrease, as society increasingly rejects biological sex as being relevant to almost* anything.
How much of gender dysmorphia is based on our current cultural norms of how the different sexes should behave/dress/live?
If it becomes perfectly culturally acceptable for a biological male to live their life like a biological female currently does, would the need for medical interventions decrease? (to be clear - I'm not saying that it's "not acceptable" to me - I'm saying that it's not yet completely acceptable in the eyes of wider society).
This is where my thinking currently is. That this is all about gender rather than biological Sex - and gender is really a collection of expectations defined by society. As we slowly deconstruct gender, what biological sex you are becomes less relevant. You can live and behave exactly as society currently expects a male to, but while being a female. No need to have surgery of take hormones - just live how you want to live.
Sorry - I am generally wary about speaking-up about gender issues - as I don't want to risk inadvertently offending people, and this feels like a minefield
*sport being one of the very few legitimate example I can think of
There’s no such thing as love.
There’s no evidence for it at all. Sure, some people claim to be in love, but I’ve never seen any evidence so until you can prove it to me it doesn’t exist. Anything will do – the chemical formula, the chromosomes involved, even a small piece of love the size of a marble will be fine.
I’ve seen evidence of happiness – people laugh, or sadness – people cry. But then again these people are probably just attention seeking anyway. Then when they don’t get the attention they feel they deserve they’ll do something else to get attention. Like a young “man” putting on a dress and make up, taking hormones, getting incredibly painful life changing surgery. Even though this means “he” will probably be ostracised by “his” family, ridiculed by “his” colleagues, beaten up or even murdered. Life expectancy is significantly reduced by the hormones, the follow up to the surgery involves weeks of daily dilation – basically pushing a dildo into your vagina to rip open the scar tissue so it doesn’t seal itself closed.
But hey, “he’s” probably just doing it so “he” can get into women’s toilets so “he” can assault them with “his” penis. Oh, except “he” had it cut off. Didn’t think that one through at all did “he”.
Actually the love analogy is pretty accurate. People whose love has been rejected sometimes take their own lives as the only way they can deal with the mental pain involved. There may be a correlation between the demographic most likely to take their own lives (young men) and gender dysphoria. Not to diminish in anyway the anguish suffered by a young trans man growing breasts and starting periods, it is socially easier for a trans man to wear jeans and a hoodie than it is for a trans woman to wear a dress and heels. Being a “Tomboy” is mostly OK, being a “Sissy” is invariably not.
I went to an all boys school in the 1990’s. My parents were openly transphobic. Fortunately I am gender fluid, not trans. Ask for the evidence of this condition if you like, I refer you back to the evidence of love. Try spending a day in my head and if you don’t run away screaming I’ll be impressed. If I’d have come out as trans at school, my peers would have killed me. Not figuratively, but literally killed me. I saw what they did to the lad who was “probably” gay. My parents would have thrown me out. Fortunately being gender fluid I got periods of time as respite.
But when in “girl” mode, if my choice was stay locked in a male body forever or come out to my family and at school, I would absolutely, undoubtedly have killed myself.
It’s nice that you give me permission to dress how I want, and sleep with who I want. But to say that my condition doesn’t exist as you have seen no evidence of it breaks my absolute core and existence. You have no idea what goes on in my head and the raging conflicts that hound me every hour of the day. You have no idea what it’s like to wake in the morning with the crushing devastation when you realise you have a penis and no breasts. You have no conception of the mental explosion that happens when I go out for the day in girl mode, and then I slip into boy mode to find I’m wearing a skirt.
You are arguing over pronouns and definitions. I’m fighting for my existence and my identity. Every. Single. Day. And I’m exhausted.
1
BruceWee
Full MemberIt seems impossible to talk about anything on here without you lot getting irritated.
If I’m getting irritated it’s only because I’m asking you questions which you refuse to answer and say I’m calling you a transphobe.
I’m not calling you a transphobe, I’m just interested in understanding.
Clearly not, but this thread is just one of those where accusations fly and im not a transphobe im not a transphobe going back and forth to no meaningful end.
Zzzzzzz
It’s interesting that some people can be willing to hide behind DNA in a way others would hide behind religious doctrine to justify their own personal mistrust and lack of acceptance towards people they can’t empathise with.
This problem arises because of the incorrect use of words. If you are born male you with die a male wither you call yourself a woman or a man. It is the confusion between the words gender and sex. If someone called mike wants to be called debra, wear dresses and put on makeup I'm all for it. I'll use their pronouns and name. Just don't tell me mike is female.
even if they undergo full gender reassignment surgery?
And did you deliberately deadname Debra in your last sentence?
This problem arises because of the incorrect use of words. If you are born male you with die a male wither you call yourself a woman or a man. It is the confusion between the words gender and sex. If someone called mike wants to be called debra, wear dresses and put on makeup I’m all for it. I’ll use their pronouns and name. Just don’t tell me mike is female.
Someone is brave enough to explain their story and fight, that’s your reply?
Unbelievable.
even if they undergo full gender reassignment surgery?
And did you deliberately deadname Debra in your last sentence
Cutting off ones penis does not change your sex. You don't know what deadnaming is
Someone is brave enough to explain their story and fight, that’s your reply?
You seem to be getting offended for absolutely no reason.
If you are born male you with die a male wither you call yourself a woman or a man.
Define "male".
What if when they were born the baby's genitals were undeveloped so it was ambiguous?
What if, because it was unclear they were surgically assigned a sex (IIRC this is usually female because "it's easier to make a hole than a pole")?
And for a Brucie Bonus: what if the doctor got it wrong?
Jesus, I thought we'd moved past this nonsense.
You don’t know what deadnaming is
I really suspect they do.
dead name
verb
gerund or present participle: deadnamingcall (a transgender person) by their birth name when they have changed their name as part of their gender transition.
Your own words
If someone called mike wants to be called debra, wear dresses and put on makeup I’m all for it. I’ll use their pronouns and name. Just don’t tell me mike is female.
are practically the perfect example of it. "I'll use their pronouns and name" and then immediately use their birth name.
seriously - i preach tolerance in both directions. To my son, that people will make mistakes and when they are genuine, even if it is triggering to him, that he has to say that's OK, don't worry about it. He can't press the red button when that happens, save it for those that deserve it.
And to people who make mistakes - don't hide, admit it, say sorry and put it right.
That's all you had to do. Say whoops, that was careless. But you went for doubling down and not correcting the error and instead telling me I don't know the definition.
You seem to be getting offended for absolutely no reason.
I’m not offended. I’m just staggered you completely ignored someone’s openness.
We don't have gender pronoun in SE Asia language or at least in my view.
I remember many years ago trying to figure out a way to write essay without referring a person as he/she/him/her whatever was rather difficult.
In our Malay language whether it is written or spoken, there is no gender unless you add further description to the sentence. As for mandarin, the spoken pronoun is the same with no gender but the written expression has a gender (only found out in my mid-teen LOL).
For Malay language:
Dia = him, his, she, her all the same.
Dia punya (spoken) = hers or his all the same.
Even in formal Malay writing we don't have gender.
Even our "Fisherman" is called "Nelayan" (gender neutral) and not something like "fisherthem" whatever ... laugh for few days that and every time I am bored all I need to do is to remember "fisherthem" and that would lighten my day.
That's really interesting, chewkw. Thanks for that. "Fisherthem" makes no sense though, is that opposed to "fisherhim"?
Etymologically speaking at least, "man" is gender neutral, it means person. "Woman" is gendered, it means "female person." The wo- part is the same root we get the word "wife" from. So technically, terms like "manhole" aren't explicitly describing access panels that only males are expected to use. Similarly with "fisherman."
Of course, language evolves and it's not really how those words are used today. But oh look, we've just come full circle on the notion that singular "they" is a modern woke invention rather than something previously well-established which has fallen into disuse.
I’m just staggered you completely ignored someone’s openness
How did I ignore someone’s openness. Someone comments about people hiding behind science. I explain as a biological scientist why it is. Maybe you are confused by what I wrote.
That’s all you had to do. Say whoops, that was careless
I made up a hypothetical situation. I can only guess you are getting pissy because I wrote Mike in the last sentence. Stop over reacting to pointless things especially ones that are not real.
Jesus, I thought we’d moved past this nonsense.
Jesus stop looking for things that are not there. I Shouldn’t really have to define what a male or female is to an adult. Maybe you can define man or woman for me without saying what ever someone feels like?
I was born male and I will die male. Nothing can change to at fact. We haven’t been able to get beyond it because of people arguing with science because they don’t agree with it.
Etymologically speaking at least, “man” is gender neutral, it means person.
Yes, that's what I thought but even in that context it is "offensive" to some because they consider "man" as in male rather than gender neutral. For example, when I was corrected by my colleague when I referred human as "mankind" and she insisted that the correct term should be humankind. Then another colleague told me I should use the term "mankind" ... arrrgghhh ...
FYI even the term 'Mankind' in SE Asia/Asia is referred to as 'manusia' with no hint of gender pronoun.
she insisted that the correct term should be humankind
Well hupersonkind would seem more appropriate as it removes the 'man' reference.
I Shouldn’t really have to define what a male or female is to an adult
You don't have to do anything. But if you're going to hang your hat onto an argument then it shouldn't be a great ask to explain what you mean. It should be easy if you've got science on your side.
Maybe you can define man or woman for me without saying what ever someone feels like?
Can you?
was corrected by my colleague when I referred human as “mankind” and she insisted that the correct term should be humankind
The problem there is you're working with idiots.
I've not been reading this whole thread but
Sure, some people claim to be in love, but I’ve never seen any evidence so until you can prove it to me it doesn’t exist. Anything will do – the chemical formula, the chromosomes involved, even a small piece of love the size of a marble will be fine.
Oxytocin. thats the hormone responsible for "love" with little help from others. Its an evolutionary mechanism
I made up a hypothetical situation.
and then got the last bit wrong, so I asked you whether it was careless or deliberate. Nothing more
I can only guess you are getting pissy because I wrote Mike in the last sentence.
No need to guess, I'll tell you. No, I didn't 'get pissy' because you deadnamed Debra in the last sentence, it could have been a simple error or ignorance or it might have been a deliberate and rather snide tactic that sadly I see happening to my son regularly. You've made me 'pissy' by your responses since.
Stop over reacting to pointless things especially ones that are not real.
Deadnaming and misgendering someone whether they are there or not is not a pointless thing. It belittles the individual's identity, and as I said in a previous post, it shows respect and it creates good habits which reduce the likelihood of deadnaming or misgendering them in future. It might be a theoretical example but as a training exercise, you got it wrong and are now continuing to get it wrong. Which is starting to remove the accidental error from the options.
Hypothetically - if you did that at my work, deadnamed someone out of their earshot, got corrected on it,
i/ if you whoopsed it away, then no more would be said
ii/ if you'd followed up in the way you have here then I would not hesitate in reporting you to HR.
Now replace deadnamed in the above with 'used a racial slur'. Now what? Still no biggie, it was only a hypothetical example and even if it was real they didn't hear it? You only get the chance of option i/ for deadnaming or misgendering currently because it IS 'new' and can be a bit confusing, you wouldn't get or expect option i/ for 'accidentally' calling someone 'the **** in accounts'.
In time, I hope deadnaming and misgendering are recognised as similarly offensive.
Over the years on these threads I've learnt to ignore Poah. I strongly suspect it's a bot of some sort, the dead giveaway being when it claimed to be a teacher. There is no way that a person so lacking in empathy or emotional intelligence could ever pass a teaching qualification so it must just be a machine of some sort. It also claims to be a scientist, but scientists have open minds and embrace new information and learning so it's definitely not one of them either.
It feels great when someone denies your entire identity doesn't it!
the correct term should be humankind
Shouldn't that be huthemkind?
I was born male and I will die male.
It’s not about you. Or me. Other people have much more difficult life journeys, let’s have some empathy and try and be kind.
Oxytocin. thats the hormone responsible for “love” with little help from others. Its an evolutionary mechanism
Maybe…
Although I much prefer…
