Transgender Miss Universe Canada Finalist Jenna Talackova Disqualified From Competing

Spewing propaganda isn't the equivalent of "pulling up one of the corners of that bulging rug to peek underneath", your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Still waiting for you to address whether parents & professionals who alter intersex children below the age of consent should likewise be jailed when such intervention isn't medically necessary.

 

I believe it is criminal to allow GRS or hormonal therapy on children, but as adults EVERYONE should have the right to do whatever they wish to their own bodies--be it extreme plastic surgery, tattoos, or GRS.

It is their life. They have but one.

What I think of whether or not they are a "real woman" should not be their concern. My opinion is none of their business, as Ru Paul would say. They need to be happy in their own skin and body and do what is necessary to make it so. They don't need my validation. They don't need to win Miss Universe to prove they're "real" (which is what I think is really going on here).

That, I think, is the biggest problem that people believe that others hold the key to their happiness and this is not so. My mother is floating around on these boards somewhere and she can confirm that even as a child I always was true to myself, did my own thing and was more concerned with truth, my personal truth, and being authentically me than what others had to say or think.

I'm pretty happy with no regrets because of it. I wish her well, but I think that having someone tell her that there are conditions that she does not meet is not unfair. It is life. Someone overweight would also not meet the conditions. Trying to make others bend to your self-perception and your destiny never works.

Be happy with who you are and what you've created for yourself.

 

From the head line of the link:

So this alone tells me that there is some faith being used as to the actual , tangible conditions that you are presenting. As I have stated, many defects and offshoots of the norm can happen..in all areas of life. So yes, i believe some do exist.

However, I am also sure that theres many who jump onboard this simply out of some misguided feelings, and have 0 quantifiable reasons for it, and yet we are all still supposed to fall in line and pretend it is so.

Your own link bears this out...so It's not really the proof you were presenting it to be.

Havent I already answered this?

If not, in these cases of obvious defect, I would think you go with the Gentalia the body has, (since we still cannot create a real working Penis for example), and then give therapy, and medication as needed until the person is comfortable with the gender they are.

What is the alternative? Give them all kinds of therapy and medication...and a half step surgical measure...to still have them not be fully functioning as the gender you want to pretend they are?

This is not helping anyone.

Now, this scenario is just that..a scenario.

You certainly cannot claim that this pertains to every "transgender". You have 0 idea what a genetic map for Jenna talackova would reveal...so the entire question is interesting, but not conclusive of anything.

 

? All that means is that the existence of the condition doesn't always produce a person who is intersex. With CAH in particular, a person with XY chromosomes and CAH may still have other health issues that require attention, but it wouldn't make them intersex.

We're talking about complexities of a medical nature here, not faith.

You mean the gender label we've slapped on them. You think we should call a person with XX chromosomes and CAH male because of the appearance of their genitals, even though they're genetically female. What's your basis for doing so? The fact that their 'parts' look male? How is that a valid criterion?

If the person feels more female because the brain has been feminized despite what has happened with their genitals, you want us to convince them that they're supposed to be a male?

The brain is the key to identity, not the genitals. No amount of therapy and drugs is likely to 'cure' this crisis of identity - which we created by slapping a label on the person that doesn't fit.

Whoa, back up. I think the decision should be up to them, not me. I'm not even persuaded that they should have to choose one or the other.

Meanwhile, you're the one saying they should be the gender YOU want to pretend they are, based on your fascination with their genitals over what their brain tells them.

The goal of sexual reassignment surgery isn't fully functional genitals. The goal of therapy isn't to make a person comfortable with the gender others want them to be.

And I haven't, so you don't have a point.

True, I don't. We also don't know that she's not intersex. The question is why that would make a difference to some people.

 

I think we are off topic here. The truth is, that people with peckers should not wear bikini's, it unsightly and unseemly. This pervert shpuld be excluded from the competition, because he is not a woman. Its simple.

 

What if, and this is totally hypothetical, he had two X chromosomes?

 

He is not a she, camoflauge by surgical procedure and hormon injections does not a woman make. If this person had two X chromasomes he would already be a she, not he pretending to be a she.

 

Yes, except for a genetic defect they are for all intents and purposes Male. The Genitalia grows in response to what the DNA says you are, barring a tiny percentage of defects of course..like all things.

If you have a Penis, you are a Male. Simply better to address the issues the person may have with that through therapy and medication.

Yes. Why would you do anything else?

You are sugesting that rather than give them therapy and Medication to achieve this...that somehow therapy, medication..and a surgery which cannot be fully natural is the better choice?

To give in to feelings?

Feelings come in all varieties, and when they are feelings that may be detrimental we treat them, we dont give in and coddle them. Anyone from the schizo to the depressed. We treat "feelings" all the time. Why would you encourage going so far the other way to encourage nothing more than unquantifiable "feelings" on this issue?

no, your DNA is the key to what you are, however If my brain was sure I was a kodiak bear..despite my body being human..why would you encourage me to have fur grafts and such? or would you advise me to get some treatment?

Well lets be honest, our society is based on one and the Other...so leaving them without being one of those choices isnt helping them at all.

Genitals are quantifiable, "feelings" are not. You wnat them to be the gender they are mistakenly thinking they are, when all signs point out that is not the case.

Really? So why bother then? If you tell them they are a Man, and give them something that vaguely might resemble a broken, limp Penis, and some drugs...yet they still cannot truly be a Man...you havent helped them. Imagine what that will do to their feelings, when they still arent really a Man?

For one who is basing his case off of the ambiguous, like Feelings, i cannot believe you wouldn't have thought that through.

Ahh but the goal of therapy SHOULD be to make sure these people are grounded in reality, and not some feel good fantasy. Encouraging someone to believe they are something, which they clearly are not..cannot be the goal of therapy either.

Well thats news to me then. It sounded as if that was the case you were making, as if Transgenders were as a whole, an actual medical condition.

It makes a difference because it brings us to the question of real medical need, as some of the examples you mentioned would be, or foolish fantasy and indulgence.

In times where an actual birth defect does leave a person mismatched..then they should be able to try and correct this as necessary into which ever they feel more comfortable with.

In times of fantasy however, noone has any responsibility to take this seriously, and in fact encouraging it rather than setting them straight is likely doing it's own harm.

 

This is where it is confusing for me. What is the feminized brain? Describe it.

The feminists taught us for years that there IS no difference in the sexes aside from our organs. Now, there is?

A feminized brain is what? Someone who likes barbies as a child as opposed to a gun? Sometimes people grow out of that.

If I like cars and working on them...am I not still female?

This sounds an awful lot like socialized and cultural behavior and...that changes depending on the culture and part of the world you are in.

I believe everyone should be free to do your own thing, but when it is explained as "what you feel in your head"...I don't buy it. I don't have a female brain. I have a brain capable of infinite uniqueness.

Of course, I'm also of the belief that I don't have to buy it for someone else to do it. Freedom first.

 

So the organs you have define you more than you genetic make up??? That's insane, that'd mean that a person born with a vestigial tail would be considered what? An ape? Should be consider kids born with club arms seals?

That's not an informed position to take, our genetics do more to define who and what we are than any phylogenetic features.

 

What defines you?

We are individuals not gender constructs that change every 100 years.

 

Ummmm....The organs you have are only developed BECAUSE of your gentic makeup. If you have a Penis it's because your DNA told your body to grow it.**

Not only is it an informed position to take...but it's also grounded in common sense.


(**barring a small percentage of defects of course which come in all factors of development)

 

Then he'd have the appropriate parts for what he is already.

 

Already been shown that, that is not always the case. A persons chromosomal makeup can differ from their phylogenetic appearance.

You can't just footnote something like this, the very existence of humans with organs that do not match up with their chromosomal makeup shatters the entire point you had to footnote with this.

 

Are you referring to pre or post op?

 

And I have said as such myself..however this is a small percentage of defects which can happen in any facet of development.

For the most part it is very safe to say, you have what your DNA says you are.

Of course you can footnote that and I will continue to do so. Nothing is 100%, and I'm not going to have anyone try to call me out for making blanket statements that I am not trying to make. There are always going to be mutations and defects from the norm...but it does not change the norm.

 

What is it an issue of? No one has yet explained this. I've seen nothing but unbacked, unscientific assertions that there is such a thing as gender distinct from sex. I've seen no evidence or even a concrete definition. The impression I have is that it exists because people want it to exist.

Why does psychological gender exist, because you say so? Because you've shown no evidence for it. The reason terms like "man" and "woman" were ever invented was because of the obvious division of the species by reproductive system. Were that not the case, there would be no such terms.

They have fully functioning genitalia of one sort or another. You're talking about mental traits. Mental traits are not intrinsically gendered. You can't label something a "male" mental trait or a "female" mental trait. You will find individuals of both sexes possesses all mental traits.

Yes, it would because it would show it's not intrinsically connected to the possession of one sort of reproductive system. Mind you, I know of no psychological trait not possessed by numerous individuals of both sexes. Many men are nurturing. Many women are "macho."

 

So! My point was to make clear that, since you admit the outliers exist, that a better way to evaluate someones sex is by their chromosomal makeup, not their physical features, since one unlike the other is 100%.

 

Having a fully functioning male reproductive system defines a male because that's what a male is. Categorizing people according to their natural and functional reproductive systems is rather important to our species since it involves our reproductive and therefore our very continuance as a species. Unlike categorizing them according to the possession of a vestigial tail.

What word would you use to define "person born with a functioning male reproductive system"? Because if you won't let us use "man" and you won't let us use "male," we'll have to come up with a brand new word for "person born with a functioning male reproductive system." Unfortunately, I suspect some folks will then cry and mope about that.

 

What happens when their chromosomal makeup contradicts their "feelings"?

 

And in the instances where their phylogeny doesn't agree with their genetics? My only point is that genetics is a better determinant of sex than phylogeny, nothing more.

Use whatever term you like, but I'll categorize based on the criteria that is consistent, rather than that which is observed.

Don't care at all about how someone "feels", only about what their genetics tell us about them.

 

Ok, we aren't that far apart then on this one...we're simply using different genetic criteria as our basis.

 

Well, I'm using genetics, you're using phylogeny which are observed characteristics.

But no, I'm not really interested in "I feel like a X" arguments, they are impossible to substantiate.

 

Except that my "observed characteristics" are only there because of Genetic instructions from their DNA. We are using the exact same genetic criteria. My DNA, and it's instructions for making a Human Male are the reason you can observe that I have 2 eyes, 10 fingers and 2 ears....and a Penis at all. Not that you necessarilly would want to observe such LOL.

Unless of course you are going to show me where DNA has 0 to do with Human genetics and Development.

Agreed.

 

They go to a psychologist.