Caitlyn... Check Yourself!

I honestly don't give a # what anybody says. There are two genders, male and female, and it's SOLELY based on what parts you were born with. The only exception is hermaphrodites which are genetic anomalies.

All other forms of gender are all various forms of mental abnormality due to various reasons, most of which aren't known because no one wants to HURT anyone's feelings with the reality of it needing to be treated, so it isn't researched properly.

Jaden

I personally, don't blame Bruce, if I lived with the Kardashians for that long, I'd probably be #ed in the head too.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cuervo

It does suggest a designation. It is used for those whose gender matches the one they were assigned at birth. The term has been around since the 90's and it's not new. The only reason it seems new to most people is because all things about transgender people that aren't based on Hollywood cliches seem new to most people. The media is becoming educated on the subject and a lot of "new" information is becoming more common knowledge.

And no, "cisgender" does not denote any medical diagnosis or social marginalization. Are you saying we should only apply labels to socially-marginalized people?

In other words, “cisgendered” is a term for people whose doctors got the gender right at birth, and “transgendered” is a term for people whose doctors got the gender wrong at birth?

You are being intentionally obtuse now. It's really not that confusing and all you are doing is rewording it to give it a spin. We can do that with any term. I've explained to you the value of the word and why it is used. Again, not confusing but you are trying to make some sort of clever distinction out of it.

"In other words, "straight" is a term for people who don't like the same sex and "gay" is a term for people who do?! Why that's nonsense and jiggery-pokery! Why not call straight people "normal"?!"

See, it's not so different than many of the terms we use everyday. Do you think "straight" is a useless term when all it means is "not gay"?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I honestly don't give a # what anybody says. There are two genders, male and female, and it's SOLELY based on what parts you were born with.

Thank you for your educated assessment Dr. Masterjaden. I can't wait to read your peer-reviewed article about how your worldview of something as complex as gender is summed up by vaginas and dicks. I'm sure it's very scientific.

a reply to: Cuervo

You are being intentionally dismissive. I'll accept that as evasion on your part.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cuervo

You are being intentionally dismissive. I'll accept that as evasion on your part.

So... how do you describe a right-handed, non-transgender man, who's not gay?

Is he just called a "normal normal normal"?

I'm not evading anything. I've explained it in every possibly way and given you plenty of sensible comparisons of words we use in the exact same way.

The fact that you asked what it meant when you could have just googled it tells me you are just trying to pick a fight over a word that's been in use for about 20 years. How many decades are required for you to accept "new" words into your lexicon?

a reply to: Cuervo

So... how do you describe a right-handed, non-transgender man, who's not gay?

You just did describe him. It’s that easy.

The fact that you asked what it meant when you could have just googled it tells me you are just trying to pick a fight over a word that's been in use for about 20 years. How many decades are required for you to accept "new" words into your lexicon?

Yes I googled it. I wanted to see if you knew what it meant. Obviously you googled it to, as you are repeating the exact same rhetoric I read on the first couple of pages. Now I’m interested in your own reasoning instead of another’s.

If cisgendered is a label for people who identify with what gender the doctors assigned them at birth, how is it not a label for people whose doctors got their gender right?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If cisgendered is a label for people who identify with what gender the doctors assigned them at birth, how is it not a label for people whose doctors got their gender right?

Doctors make a determination of sex based based primarily on external genitalia and other things. Gender is a social construct and internal process that comes later, usually between the third and fourth year of life.

a reply to: EKron

Gender is a social construct and internal process that comes later, usually between the third and fourth year of life.

According to feminist philosophy. Unfortunately there's very little science to back it up.

But I suppose we can say the transgendered gender identity is a social construct, and we can all go home.

a reply to: Masterjaden

That is not true, and there has been scientific studies that show otherwise, you born and assigned a Sex, that does not define your gender-Identity that you are born with

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cuervo

So... how do you describe a right-handed, non-transgender man, who's not gay?

You just did describe him. It’s that easy.

The fact that you asked what it meant when you could have just googled it tells me you are just trying to pick a fight over a word that's been in use for about 20 years. How many decades are required for you to accept "new" words into your lexicon?

Yes I googled it. I wanted to see if you knew what it meant. Obviously you googled it to, as you are repeating the exact same rhetoric I read on the first couple of pages. Now I’m interested in your own reasoning instead of another’s.

If cisgendered is a label for people who identify with what gender the doctors assigned them at birth, how is it not a label for people whose doctors got their gender right?

I suppose it is. A cisgender person was correctly gendered by their doctor and their bodies developed in line with their gender, yeah. How does that make the word useless?

And what "reasoning" of mine is it that you want? I don't understand what you are asking.

But, as a courtesy to the rest of ATS, pm me if you really want to know as this has derailed the thread quite a bit.

a reply to: Cuervo

Fair enough. Thanks for your insight.

originally posted by: Hefficide
This term, "cis-gendered". I have never before been expose to it and, honestly, my reaction to it was and remains negative.

Probably because the first time you heard it, someone used it derogatorily as "cis-ignorant".

Particularly after I web searched the term to find out what it means and ended up watching a video where a trans person repeatedly modified it to "cissy's".

Heff, there are people in every group who try to malign others by calling them names. Don't make your mind up because of something you saw on YouTube. The term "trannies" is offensive as well, which is something I recently learned.

But when bigotry and intolerance is countered by intolerance, nobody wins. It's a zero-sum prospect.

Exactly. The person using these words as weapons is ignorant of the proper use or just intolerant. Don't judge the word or all transgender people because of one person, neither your relative nor this video person.

This "cis" word honestly strikes me as feeling derogatory.

Why? It's a chemistry term. So is "trans". They fit the context of people with GID.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But I suppose we can say the transgendered gender identity is a social construct, and we can all go home.

Why limit this to transgender people? I'd say yours is as much as a social construct as the next persons. Yes, there are probably biological predispositions, chemistry and other factors involved beyond just the "social" but my point was sex is assigned at birth based on physical observations of anatomy. Identification of and expression as masculine and feminine (gender) happens later. For most people, sex and gender go together. For others, not so much.

I'm going to get burned to the ground for this because some consider it controversial and blasphemous but if you want science, data and facts and have a day or more to read years of research and analysis, have a look at Kay Brown's comprehensive blog On the science of changing sex No skimming or cherry picking quotes either. This is not going to win me any friends here and probably not the best use of my 200th post (w00t!) but here's your supporting science to back up whatever you think needs backed up.

Oh yeah, are you a student of feminist philosophy? You seem to know more about it than I do.

a reply to: beezzer

But Beezzer she is spying on you



As to the OP, so we have a guy wanted to be a girl, had the surgery wanted to be refereed as a gal, then later she wants to be called a he again, so wait a homosexual eunuch, or is it a lesbian transgender?

I am so confused.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I honestly don't give a # what anybody says. There are two genders, male and female, and it's SOLELY based on what parts you were born with. The only exception is hermaphrodites which are genetic anomalies.

All other forms of gender are all various forms of mental abnormality due to various reasons, most of which aren't known because no one wants to HURT anyone's feelings with the reality of it needing to be treated, so it isn't researched properly.

Jaden

I personally, don't blame Bruce, if I lived with the Kardashians for that long, I'd probably be #ed in the head too.

really!!! what about people have chromosomes of one sex but have sex organs of the opposite sex,

a reply to: research100
That's a form of a condition known as intersex. And intersex is now preferred over the term hermaphrodite.
Any time a baby is born with tissues of both sex glands than they are considered to be intersex. But it usually does not manifest itself in the form of true "hermaphroditism".

a reply to: Mousygretchen

yes I know that.., the poster above me has the most narrow definition.....I know it is called intersex, but I didn't post it so I am glad you did... they should look it up and do a little research

originally posted by: EKron

originally posted by: Hefficide
Clue me in, how does hetero bashing and using terms like "cis-ignorants" help spread understanding and acceptance again?

Good point.

This is purely reactionary based on the way transgender people have usually been treated and perhaps a preemptive strike against the hate and negativity directed at them over and over again.

Heck, "transgender" is such a broad term, those of us here lumped together under this umbrella don't even all get along. Even if one restricts the use of the word transsexual to those that have completed all medical procedures including sexual reassignment surgery, there are two distinct etiologies involved here that don't get along with each other as well. It doesn't take being cis to be considered prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant.

Is it any wonder when some act a little defensively? I don't hetero bash because that's what I'm considered and enjoy cis privilege in my daily life and know not all in this stratum of society are ignorant. It's just that this is where most of the crap comes from and the ones most in need of enlightenment. It can be hard to be all warm and fuzzy to those that have typically been enemies but here's an olive branch and extended hand to hopefully bridge this gap one of these days.

See this is the part I do not understand.. Sex changes, being a transgender etc, from what I understood was a personal thing, I guess I would call it taboo, since their is a minority of people um attracted to transgenders?

It is as if, the whole title of transgender is being ushered into mainstream society, and the irony is the spokesman, the celebrity I should say who is grandstanding it comes from an American dysfunctional family. To me it is just kind of weird, this stuff is personal sexual orientation mental health individual psychology is personal. It just seems that this whole things has turned into a money grab for magazines television and talking heads. I suppose their needs to be a group I suppose of transgenders to be a political group to protect that social I suppose, but to me it is just strange, maybe even borderline selfish and has a tint of vanity to it. Again, I do not really care if someone wants to get a sex change to be a man or a woman, yet it seems the media, hell society, is like forcing opinion on it, or to be exposed to the process, on the news tv grocery store magazine stands etc.

maybe I am just over reacting I just find it really weird like trying to get my attention, it is odd. In any case it seems to make money, and I am sure Hollywood is going to continue to profit off of it, and no longer will it be taboo I guess. There appears to be a growing demographic portion of the population who fit this category, and as I said personally I do not care, and I am sure at one point or another it's just going to be normal to me.. I guess that is the agenda here. As said thou, I am not a big fan of that genner guy or gal thou, he seems pretty selfish. If it was me I think I would have been more private.

a reply to: EKron

Why limit this to transgender people? I'd say yours is as much as a social construct as the next persons. Yes, there are probably biological predispositions, chemistry and other factors involved beyond just the "social" but my point was sex is assigned at birth based on physical observations of anatomy. Identification of and expression as masculine and feminine (gender) happens later. For most people, sex and gender go together. For others, not so much.

I'm going to get burned to the ground for this because some consider it controversial and blasphemous but if you want science, data and facts and have a day or more to read years of research and analysis, have a look at Kay Brown's comprehensive blog On the science of changing sex No skimming or cherry picking quotes either. This is not going to win me any friends here and probably not the best use of my 200th post (w00t!) but here's your supporting science to back up whatever you think needs backed up.

Oh yeah, are you a student of feminist philosophy? You seem to know more about it than I do.

Of course you’d say my gender is a social construct. You believe in such a premise. But simply repeating a premise is not the same as proving a premise. I would say your gender is not a social construct. Now we're right back where we started.

If gender is a social construct, then gender is unnatural and artificial. I do not see how that is the case. Obviously biology has everything to do with it—we are our biology, not societal constructs—from the genes, to incubation, to the brain structure, to the hormones, all the way through its development. etc. etc. etc. all of which is completely natural and within the realm of biological possibilities—assuming that anything within the realm of biological possibility is natural, and everything outside of them is unnatural.

Sure I’ve read copious amounts of feminist philosophy, but I’m definitely not a student of it. Unlike a student of feminist philosophy I do not limit myself to it.

Thanks for the link. I’m not sure how a non-scientists blog constitutes science, but hey, like I said, there is not that much science to back up the claims. I won't burn ya. It sounds like a good read.

originally posted by: Bicent76
If it was me I think I would have been more private.

How would an already famous person be private about it? Move to Mongolia? There's NO WAY Caitlyn could have done this and kept it private. Not that she should.