Non TS/TV males who post as women on WP, testimonials wanted, enquire within Options

[the fieryangel]

In the project that I'm currently working on with Peter, Greg, and Eric, I'm writing the chapter on Users. In the section discussing the systemic bias, I'm going to try to go into detail as to the gender gap and possible reasons why this exists.

It's obvious why TS/TV individuals post as women, so that's pretty self-explanatory (dare I say "normal"?) However, it would seem that a great many non-TS/TV males contribute to WP as females, either via sock puppets (à la Kristen Erikson) and also as their main personae. I'm looking for people who would be willing to discuss how posting as females changes the experience on WP. I would also be interested in women who post as males and why they do that. (I know of at least one experience of this happening and I'm sure that there are more....)

Just send me a private message here and we'll discuss it.

[carbuncle]

Ottava, yo have made me curious about something. Can someone who has had breast implants get into Heaven™? What about someone who has had sex reassignment surgery?

[Ottava]

Ottava, yo have made me curious about something. Can someone who has had breast implants get into Heaven™? What about someone who has had sex reassignment surgery?

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

Merely saying "I don't like how I look, therefore I need to have to keep changing myself" is an obsession with the material and a lack of proper priorities. If you are merely living to help others, to do good, to love one another, you don't need to alter your body, get tattoos, enlarge your breasts, cut off your penis, etc.

If someone is too busy focusing on how they hate themselves and obsessing with it, how can they think about God or virtue? That goes with any obsession. So to answer your question, can someone with a sex change get into Heaven, the chances are that they wont be focusing on such things nor truly care enough. This is not talking about people who may have two different sex organs or the rest, but about people who willingly change without anything like that.

After all, there are many people who have problems that they feel they are born wrong with - blindness, loss of limbs, etc - but i they start rejecting their body, loathing themselves, etc. over their condition then that is a problem. Our whole approach to special needs children, for example, is that they are already perfect. They aren't "handicapped". They are beautiful, wonderful, and great, and it is obvious that someone with, say, down syndrome has more of a legitimate grief with how they were born than someone who merely doesn't like being able to pee standing up, yet the thing about most of those children is that they are capable of accepting themselves.

[carbuncle]

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

So, then, no, you can't get into Heaven™ if you have breast implants. Or if you have had sexual reassignment surgery. Is that right?

Unsurprisingly, I'd like to go back to my earlier example of a woman who has had a mastectomy due to breast cancer and has a breast reconstruction (using only her own tissue, incidentally). Would she get into Heaven™? Or is she, too, "desecrating God's gift"?

[Ottava]

Heaven in the Catholic sense requires a mental understanding of God's love, which would be demonstrated through appreciation for God's gifts. Mutilation of the self is the same problems with suicide - desecration of God's gift - i.e. you reject what you were given. Now, there are some who were able to be sainted for a "suicide" like act, which doesn't mean any giving up is wrong. However, it is the motivation for destroying God's gift.

So, then, no, you can't get into Heaven™ if you have breast implants. Or if you have had sexual reassignment surgery. Is that right?

Unsurprisingly, I'd like to go back to my earlier example of a woman who has had a mastectomy due to breast cancer and has a breast reconstruction (using only her own tissue, incidentally). Would she get into Heaven™? Or is she, too, "desecrating God's gift"?

If she did it purely for cosmetic reasons, then yes. It is all about materialism and your focus in all things. Suffering is not an excuse to say "f you to God" and then expect to get into Heaven.



The Adversary

And it is all natural, God's gift, if you like. My friend deeply wish God had been a bit less generous: it hurts her back, it is almost impossible to get bras that fit, and any running is out of the question. This for a start.

Now, is she "desecrating God's gift" if she gets a breast-reduction? Seriously?

As I said, it is all about the reasons why. If your reason is "I hate how I am" then yes, it is a problem. You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Malleus]

You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

That's interesting. Would you include dental surgery in that? I'm thinking about things like capping to improve the regularity of your teeth. What about wart removal? Or are you one of those like Oliver Cromwell who believes that we are what we are, warts and all?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Ottava]

You should never have surgery because you hate a part of yourself.

That's interesting. Would you include dental surgery in that? I'm thinking about things like capping to improve the regularity of your teeth. What about wart removal? Or are you one of those like Oliver Cromwell who believes that we are what we are, warts and all?

If you are ripping out your teeth because you think they are awful or evil, then yes, I would include it. If you are change your teeth to help you eat, then no.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

It is all about your justifications.


lonza leggiera

If you read the complete article—which Ottava seems to have been curiously reluctant to provide a direct link to—you will find that your interpretation isn't possible. The original article isn't a "Johns Hopkins report" as Ottava apparently wants to classify it, but an article McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things

Except no. I reported the Johns Hopkins stopping sex change operations. I linked to Johns Hopkins too which had an article on their site.

The quote/extract later from the conservative article was to show that Somey was wrong to think McHugh was not 100% against sex changes.


It is funny how you claim I misread yet you blatantly ignored the John Hopkins piece.

It was clearly right here, but since you are making up everything else, you would obviously deny that it was put there or even existed. Of course. How could I expect anything less from your wonderful track record.

I do love how you say that McHugh is informed my religion (as if it was a bad thing) by using examples after he made the changes at Johns Hopkins. Instead, it is more obvious that he got the speaking gigs/articles publication opportunities after his action and making his stance, and that he was speaking to interested groups.

[lonza leggiera]

....
lonza leggiera

If you read the complete article—which Ottava seems to have been curiously reluctant to provide a direct link to—you will find that your interpretation isn't possible. The original article isn't a "Johns Hopkins report" as Ottava apparently wants to classify it, but an article McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things

Except no. I reported the Johns Hopkins stopping sex change operations. I linked to Johns Hopkins too which had an article on their site.

The trouble is you did not supply that link until some three hours and three intervening posts after you had instructed Eric Barbour to "read the Johns Hopkins report". In neither the post where you issued that instruction, nor in any other preceding post of yours in this thread was there anything except this link to the NARTH news item that could conceivably contain any clue as to what the "Johns Hopkins report" you were referring to might be. The NARTH news item was clearly not a Johns Hopkins report by any stretch of the imagination, but it did contain two links to articles which might possibly have qualified. The first was a (broken) link to McHugh's article in First Things, and the second was a link to an article in The New England Journal of Medicine. The latter could conceivably qualify as a "Johns Hopkins report" since its authors belonged to that institution, but it had nothing whatever to say about the termination of sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins, let alone the reasons why it was terminated. I therefore presumed that your "Johns Hopkins report" could only be meant to refer to McHugh's article. I'm glad to hear that I was apparently mistaken, and have accordingly amended my previous post to reflect this. However, I'm blowed if I know how you expected anyone to know what on Earth you were referring to when you didn't provide the appropriate link until some three hours and three posts later.

....

It is funny how you claim I misread yet you blatantly ignored the John Hopkins piece. ...

No I didn't ignore it at all. In fact, I specifically wrote:

You're apparently right, however, that Ottava has misread something into these articles which neither of them say. In neither of them can I find any justification for Ottava's assertion that "Johns Hopkins stopped sex changes because they determined that it was a mental disease" .... [emphasis added]

The "articles" (plural) being referred to here are McHugh's First Things article, and the the one in Hopkins Medical News which you are accusing me of having "blatantly ignored".

I do love how you say that McHugh is informed my religion (as if it was a bad thing) by using examples after he made the changes at Johns Hopkins. ...

Glad you liked it, but I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote (although I have to admit I'm having some trouble working out precisely what the above-quoted sentence means). I had no intention of making any comment whatsoever about your religious beliefs. When I wrote:

There are couple of interesting items available on-line which indicate that McHugh's religious convictions might have had more influence on some of his supposedly scientific conclusions than Ottava is willing to admit.

the "his supposedly scientific conclusions" in that sentence was intended (pretty clearly I thought) to refer to McHugh's scientific conclusions, not yours. I'm guessing you might have been confused by my gratuitous speculation here about what you might be willing to admit about how much McHugh's scientific conclusions might have been influenced by his religious convictions. This was definitely out of line, and I apogise for having made it.