Caitlyn is a woman; Rachel is black; what do you want to be?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

True, she was taking hormones in the 80's, before the Kardashian Fame..

a reply to: grandmakdw

I am however judging Jenner because I think he actually went ahead and "transformed" (but note: kept his penis) due to envy of the attention and money his wife and daughters were getting. Subconciously, but he is turning his body into a money maker and making a mockery of the true transgender who want to get on quietly with their lives.

Then let's just deal with this :-)

Cattiness - pure and simple

You just don't like showy, moneyed people. In your universe transgendered peeps would not be allowed any buttons

I can see now that the most reasonable explanation is that a thoroughly, biologically, manly man like Bruce - with all his DNA dotted and his chromosomes crossed - would definitely be jealous of his glamorous daughters and want to jump on board the good ship Money Whore in a big bad way

Envy is a very curious thing Grams - I'll give you that

a reply to: grandmakdw

So I can be anything I want, except to be free.

*meh*

(sticks with being a fluffy bunny and hops away)

a reply to: grandmakdw

I have no bias against transgendered

lol!

You might need to reread your posts and give that a little more thought.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I object to the fame whoring that is going on with it all.

You THINK Jenner is a "fame whore". That's just speculation.

Everything I said about chromosomes was accurate.

I'm not doubting that. It's the accuracy of what you said about Jenner that I question.

And yes, it takes an environmental trigger of some kind for someone to decide against their biology to "be" something else.

You may THINK that's true, but empirical evidence disagrees with you.

Sex Change: It's not Epigenetics or DES

Don't be a fool and fall for all that false and misleading information like epigenetics and DES as causing Gender Dysphoria.

The fact is they did not test epigenetics in any subject in this paper. In fact, this paper was a response to work that was done by Dr. William J Turner.

In conclusion, there is no objective proof of a link to epigenetics or DES as the cause for the onset of transgenderism.

Transgenders are just normal males and not a smidgen of abnormality exists in the genetic make-up of transgenders. The males are normal.

We now know gender issues are psycho-social or psychological, and perhaps psychiatric issues exist in transgenders which manifest in gender identity issues.

Yes, when I say "I think" that means it is what I think, not that it is fact but is my opinion. That is what "I think" means.

Also, your quote from the article you posted ended by basically saying that transgender is a psychological disorder.

At least I am saying that there was something
in either their environment or the womb environment
that affected the genetic code

(not the chromosomes, the DNA and genetic code -
that is what epigenetics is all about)
and feminized the brain.

Be it chemical, or too much soy in the diet
(which is high in estrogen and feminizes males),
or something else in the environment either pre or post birth.

That means I am saying that something is probably happening
to the genetic code of the transgender males
that makes the brain think it is female.

The article you quoted called it a psychiatric "issue "
which is psychological code for disorder.

At least my hypothesis, unlike the one you quoted says
that something happens genetically to the basic code of the DNA
that feminizes the brain,
something in the environment

That is the crux of epigenetics.


The chromosomes determine the biological sex
and secondary sex characteristics
they stay the same, X is always X and Y is always Y
Bruce Jenner will always have one X and one Y
chromosome regardless of his outward appearance

The epigenetic changes happen at the DNA level
created when the 2 chromosomes join together
and form complete pattern of DNA for
an individual
But no matter what happens in life
the X will be an X
and the Y will be a Y
and XXY etc. will create a human being with visible problems
and issues which Jenner does not have.


The hypothesis in the article you quoted called transgender
an "issue" which means disorder;
and denied that genetics plays any part at all in transgenderism.

Which is actually the opposite of the epigenetic argument for transgender.

And yes, something like extreme jealousy and envy
can actually change the genetic code through epigenetics
because of the stress it places on the body,
and stress can change the genetic code through epigenetics.
READ about it please, it is fascinating.

edit on 11Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:29:00 -0500pm61806pmk184 by grandmakdw because: addition format

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am however judging Jenner because I think he actually went ahead and "transformed" (but note: kept his penis) due to envy of the attention and money his wife and daughters were getting. Subconciously, but he is turning his body into a money maker and making a mockery of the true transgender who want to get on quietly with their lives.

Then let's just deal with this :-)

Cattiness - pure and simple

You just don't like showy, moneyed people. In your universe transgendered peeps would not be allowed any buttons

I can see now that the most reasonable explanation is that a thoroughly, biologically, manly man like Bruce - with all his DNA dotted and his chromosomes crossed - would definitely be jealous of his glamorous daughters and want to jump on board the good ship Money Whore in a big bad way

Envy is a very curious thing Grams - I'll give you that

You never answered my question, instead replied with an insult,
which is not intelligent discourse,
but a way of lashing out when you can not come up with a cogent argument.

You said that if someone feels they are something
they are biologically not,
that their feelings trump all biology.

Therefore, the people who think they are
a snake, or a cat, etc.
and go through transformation
through tattoos and through facial reconstruction, etc
They truly feel they are that animal and feel that they were mistakenly born human.

Question you avoided:
Do their feelings trump their biology making them the animal they claim to be?
How is that any different from transgenderism, or transracialism on the biological (scientific) level?

That was your argument,
rather than looking at my argument for epigenetics,
which obviously no one bothered to look up and read about.

Since I am gathering that people do not know the
difference between chromosomes and
a fully formed genetic code.

See my post before this one and read about epigenetics
before replying please with your insults and add something
of value to the discourse.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: grandmakdw

I have no bias against transgendered

lol!

You might need to reread your posts and give that a little more thought.

Did you bother to read about epigenetics which was integral to my posts
before throwing out insults that add nothing to intelligent conversation?

I don't think so.

I gave a simplistic rundown of what I was referring to when I said that
the chromosomes are NOT the problem with Jenner

that epigenetics might be the cause

but science has NOT come up with any definitive answer.

As you can see by reading the posts before this one, Bene Heretic
found an article saying epigenetics was not the problem
but science says it is a psychological issue (code for disorder)

However, I think, feel epigenetics plays a large role in
transgender/transracial/transspecies identity issues.

By the way simply posting an insult
is the sign of having nothing of real value
to add to a thread.


Please read the post where I described in a very simplistic way
what epigenetics means before quipping off
another insult that adds nothing of import to the discussion.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I AM A TURTLE.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: grandmakdw

I have no bias against transgendered

lol!

You might need to reread your posts and give that a little more thought.

Just because someone has an opinion different that yours doesn't make them bias. I can not agree with what another person does, or dislike another person without being bias toward them.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
a reply to: grandmakdw

I AM A TURTLE.

Hello turtle...I am still a goat.

Ok granny, after reading your replies and your repeated attempts to validate your own opinions on the matter I can't help but ask what is your point or suggestion for resolution on this subject? What do you hope to achieve by shoving your opinion down the throats (just like we do all the time, right?) of those that do not agree with you. You just like we are not swaying the opposition. So again what do you get out of repeatedly sharing a view point that is fortunately going the way of the dinosaurs?

The fact of the matter is that the majority of society is warming up and starting to accept us as productive normal members of society. If you don't like that then oh well because it is happening and fortunately you and those like you will be gone soon enough. So until then you are welcome to think or feel however you like so long as you do not manifest those thoughts into hate speech or violence against me or mine then fine hate away.

That goes for all the others that continuously go out of their way to be hurtful and abrasive. In another thread one special individual defends his stance by claiming that he is not nice and referred to himself as a savage lol. I find the notion laughable that someone thinks it a good thing to be not nice or "savage" like they are proud of those qualities. It is people like that that make me feel better about myself because they remind me of how much of a decent person I am.

So hey if you want to be rude and crappy to someone who you don't like or agree with in your daily life then by all means go for it but don't be surprised when it bites you in the @$$ one day.

You say I'm not normal...well I say you are not a good person. a

I would urge all members of the lgbt community to refrain from responding to those that use improper pro-nouns or hurtful speech. That is the best way to beat them in these forums. Simply do not engage them if they intentionally use hurtful speech. That is exactly what i do in the RW, I refuse to acknowledge anyone who speaks to me disrespectfully. They do not deserve my time or energy.




a reply to: grandmakdw

repeat post

originally posted by: grandmakdw
originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

There is no resolution.

I was posting the science, if science fact is bias than are we now to reject science as old fashioned and biased if we don't agree - have an idea or feeling that opposes with it?

The science says that one can not change their biology from male to female, if they die and decompose a scientist will always reconstruct them as male. So at the molecular level they will always be male. That is not bias or being mean, it is actually being objective.

I am amazed at the people who think that simply stating the science behind transgenderism is being a bigoted dinosaur.
Yet the very same people say science in other threads have emphatically insisted that science always trumps religion (an idea, a feeling).

I accept the transgendered, but if one accepts the transgendered, one MUST by logical extension accept the transracial and transpecies. If feelings trump science then one MUST accept anything that anyone decides they are without question.


Because the transracial trasspecies really feel they are another race/species, they go through transformation to look like the other race/species and honestly and genuinely feel like they are something they are not on the biological level.

I have repeatedly stated that transgender who go about it quietly and with dignity are to be accepted because they are being honest and not doing it for the publicity/money/reality TV show etc. But doing it because they genuinely feel that is who they are.

But one can NOT say transgender is ok, but transracial is not acceptable, that is being intellectually dishonest.

I am not proposing any solution except that if one accepts transgender as ok and normal, then by extension we MUST accept transracial and transspecies as ok and normal - because both transformations are based on how one feels, not by any science. If society decides that how one feels is the highest value, then one must also accept that all religious feelings trump any science.
Society has to decide and must think of the implications of each.

I know you don't believe me, but honestly I don't care if you are transgendered, as long as you don't run around telling everyone proudly "I used to be a man" and making certain the entire world knows. OR go into a womans open dressing room and run around with a penis and testicles in full view of everyone and claim one has to be accepted as a woman, instead of being modest and not running around nude with a penis and testicles showing in front of women and girls (as a transgender did at a gym).

As far as some of the people who responded with insults, I have become familiar with them, and they often claim that science is the highest value as far as making decisions, but here they throw insults and say feelings negate science, which is disingenuous.

Solution, there isn't one. And really if one is transgender, I don't want to know, be modest and be fully female and be fully who you say you are and it is no one elses business and live in peace with all. That is my solution, just fully be who you think you are and you will be accepted and thought of as who you think you are. If one feels they are hiding something by being fully female and with a fully female identity and think everyone has to know they were (are) also male, then I have questions about their female identity. Not that they have to hide it, but if one goes about their life living fully and completely as a female and doesn't show off their penis in public restrooms or changing rooms, or feel they must tell everyone they are a genetic male, then live in peace. If that is biased or mean, then so be it.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Science tells me I'm a brunette, yet I've been a blonde my whole life. I identify as a blonde.

Science tells me I have hairy legs, yet they are smooth as I keep them that way from preference to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me my underarms should be hairy, but my preference is to not be identified as a woman with hairy underarms, again, to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me I should have fallen pregnant every time I had sexual intercourse during ovulation but I chose to "manipulate" my hormones to avoid pregnancy.

Science tells me my breasts should be larger, but I had them reduced.

Science told a young male relative he should have a left breast (Gynecomastia) but he had it removed as his preference was to not have breasts.

Our identity is none of your business.

Your claims of trans people wagging their junk in peoples faces is ludicrous, offensive and false.

If you value your own identity, please afford others the same courtesy.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: grandmakdw

Science tells me I'm a brunette, yet I've been a blonde my whole life. I identify as a blonde.

Science tells me I have hairy legs, yet they are smooth as I keep them that way from preference to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me my underarms should be hairy, but my preference is to not be identified as a women with hairy underarms, again, to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me I should have fallen pregnant every time I had sexual intercourse during ovulation but I chose to "manipulate" my hormones to avoid pregnancy.

Science tells me my breasts should be larger, but I had them reduced.

Science told a young male relative he should have a left breast (Gynecomastia) but he had it removed as his preference was to not have breasts.

Our identity is none of your business.

Your claims of trans people wagging their junk in peoples faces is ludicrous, offensive and false.

If you value your own identity, please afford others the same courtesy.

A man did wag his junk in front of women at a 24 hour fitness. It was offensive and he said he was transgendered and so belonged in a womens dressing room. The woman who complained was banned from 24 hour fitness.

You are exactly correct, ones identity is none of anyones business. That is what I am saying, I object to those like Caitlyn who make it everyone's business. Having a TV show on ones transformation and a magazine spread, makes it everyones business.

Keep it your business and live in peace. Make it other people's business and expect a reaction. I suggest living in peace and live and let live. I respect those who live and let live in peace and dignity.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: grandmakdw

Science tells me I'm a brunette, yet I've been a blonde my whole life. I identify as a blonde.

Science tells me I have hairy legs, yet they are smooth as I keep them that way from preference to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me my underarms should be hairy, but my preference is to not be identified as a woman with hairy underarms, again, to be in line with "gender" identities created by society.

Science tells me I should have fallen pregnant every time I had sexual intercourse during ovulation but I chose to "manipulate" my hormones to avoid pregnancy.

Science tells me my breasts should be larger, but I had them reduced.

Science told a young male relative he should have a left breast (Gynecomastia) but he had it removed as his preference was to not have breasts.

Our identity is none of your business.

Your claims of trans people wagging their junk in peoples faces is ludicrous, offensive and false.

If you value your own identity, please afford others the same courtesy.

But your not making a bread circus out of it. Huge difference. You're not using your gender or race the way politicians use charities. That's the issue here. "No such thing as bad publicity" and all that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah granny aint keeping this to Jenna.....
She has tarred all trans with the same brush as Jenna. And no Trans people don't all "make a bread circus out of it"

DP

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yet afford no dignity to people who have a real identity struggle. Do you think it is fun for them? It is a trauma. How dare you come in lording your preference on what people can and cannot identify with about themselves. I hate the Kardashians, but I don't single out Jenna as you have due to his trans issue, illustrating to everyone here you bias against trans people with your vitriol.

Your point on the gym incident is exaggerated and I'm not going into that with you.

Keep it your business and live in peace. Make it other people's business and expect a reaction. I suggest living in peace and live and let live. I respect those who live and let live in peace and dignity.

What load of rubbish, you have done none of the above in this thread. Instead you have openly claimed that science means all transgender people are wrong or bad or something. what is wrong with you? Why would you be so intent on being so vicious towards people you don't know, as you aren't keeping this to Jenna, you have painted all trans with the same brush.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Actually I did read your posts but chose not to comment on it because all it did was piss me off. Might have had something to do with your presumptive arrogance that you need to instruct this forum on chromosomes and genetics of which I might add - you represent yourself as knowing a great deal more about these subjects than you actually do, so your little genetics lessons are impertinent and add little substantive information to the discussion in particular as it applies to the individual who is the subject of your scrutiny.

I am relatively certain most people on ATS are aware of DNA differences in the genders. There are a variety of syndromes and combinations on those two little genes, which are sometimes three, and they have names and characteristics, and quite often biological as well as intellectual and thought indicators and yes, aberrations about which I could write a dissertation. (And if fact I mean a real dissertation, as I have written them before, so you will know) And clearly Caitlyn Jenner has none of them, indeed, sometimes these things can be determined at a glance, and I'm quite comfortable in asserting that she does not.

Why is it necessary to scrutinize every aspect of this person's decisions? It's obvious you desperately want to pinpoint
WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIM. You cannot seem to get past the idea that there is pathology involved which you need to identify, and can't seem to accept the fact that's it none of your business.

As far as my comment is concerned in which I state you need to reexamine the position you maintain that you are not biased, that remains quite the case as well.