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

[Ottava]

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to the use of breast implants. The reconstruction methods used in many cases do not involve implants and are therefore more similar to the surgical construction of genitalia. The resulting breasts are "non-functional" in the sense that they can not produce milk. Are those "true" breasts?

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

So in the fantasy world that you inhabit, there are special benefits for women and racial minorities?

Never heard of Affirmative Action? Title IX? We've made fun of pretenders who wish to take advantage of these benefits. They are benefits designed to off set social hindrances, and white men shouldn't be allowed to merely claim fanciful things to attain them.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 10th November 2011, 5:34pm

[SB_Johnny]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out?

[that one guy]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out?

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

[A Horse With No Name]

At this point in the discussion, may I introduce my choice to replace "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem of the USA:

[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?

[Abd]

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Ottava is using the bankrupt language of "defect." It's fascist, at root. What's been settled on is that these things are genetic variations. Variation is part of the evolutionary system, variations are more or less functional, as to specific situation. What is a defect in one situation may be a benefit in another. Is the genetic variation of sickle-cell anemia a "defect"? Depends on the environment!

And what about homosexuality. Ottava is using "lack of reproductability" -- as to individuals -- as if this was intrinsically a defect. But various species have members, individuals, who do not reproduce, but who do contribute to the survival of the species. Ottava is reflecting an old church argument, but without the gravitas of the church, nor with its authority.

What is a "true" penis or vagina? "True" is an abstraction, when used in this way. It's a judgment, not a reality. It's a matter of convention, i.e., usage. And Ottava makes up his own conventions, and claims that they are "true."

The original topic here had to do with non-transexual, non-transvestite males who post as women on WP. Ottava, with some assistance, turned it into being about himself, really, the usual. He trolls for this. There is an apparent transvestite male, that certain "guy," who certainly "posted as a woman." Ottava hates the deviants from his norms (as do many of us). But he's highly deviant himself, that's the irony.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 10th November 2011, 6:39pm

[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.

[SB_Johnny]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out?

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

Wait, you mean Reagan had a female persona on the internet*? Or arpanet**? Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was his sockpuppet***?

*Oh nevermind, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
**Look it up.
***Actually, that kinda make sense...

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny: Thu 10th November 2011, 7:03pm

[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"?

[Abd]

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

Ottava is always asserting the primacy of language -- his language -- over underlying realities. What's the function of a breast? i doubt that he's got a clue as to the variety of functions. Specifically, what's the function of size? Rather obviously, it is attractive to some males. If a person finds a mate, someone whose life enhances their own, because of an implant, was this a "fake breast"? Conversely, if a person has breast reduction surgery, which is pretty common, does this mean that the breasts are less real?

It's all about words for Ottava. An image above was presented of a woman with a T-shirt, and, yes, she was obviously cold. Does Ottava recognize this? Does he understand the effect of such an image? Does that effect depend on whether or not there some silicone or whatever underneath the skin?

None of this really means anything to Ottava, he's only about being Right, which, for him, is about language, the meanings of words, with Ottava hewing to his Right meanings. Everyone else is wrong.

Talk about dysfunctional! The purpose of language is communication, not being "right." If the words communicate, they are functional. If not, not. What's communicated? Now, ''that's an interesting question," eh?

There is more communication in that wet T-shirt image than in an entire topic here. Much more. A picture is worth 1000 words. Often more. A real visual perception in real life, incomparable. Thanks, Horsey.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights?

Ottava does stick his foot in it, doesn't he? The very question shows "us" and "them." They are the deviants, they are not worthy of being considered human. On meta, he's really showing that he'd support the death penalty for "harming people." No forgiveness, no redemption. Great for a supposed Christian, eh?

In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc.

OMG. And how precisely is anyone going to know to be offended? Do people stand around trying to judge whether that person is male or female? If a person looks obviously male, and is in a women's room, it will raise hackles. There are "biological women" who are undergoing hormonal therapy to change gender. These women report that they become very male in their attitudes toward women. That they were horrified to find themselves doing what they'd thought was so offensive when men did it, staring at women, etc. Which bathroom should they go into, or are they to be excluded from bathrooms. I've known some women who very much looked like men, and passed as men. What bathroom should they go into?

Ottava has no experience with the real issues, but he sits making judgments ex cathedral. With no authority, just his own arrogance.

The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has.

Yup. They "say it" by looking like it. Are we going to require ID of people to use the bathroom. Will the driver's license people be required to verify gender? I think Ottava might love that we all have to carry IDs certifying to our "true identity." You know, he used to get a person blocked for using his real name.

That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

False problem. You can find people who object to almost anything. It proves nothing. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for pretending to be a woman and going into a women's room, when the pretense was not a part of an actual scheme to harm, i.e., was a personal identity? Or vice-versa, a woman into a man's room?

If I put on a dress, made myself up to be a particularly ugly woman, which is probably all I could manage, and otherwise making myself appear as a woman, and walked into a men's room, I'd expect to be arrested for disturbing the peace! Social conventions are about appearance, about what actually would cause disruption.

You'd think that Ottava would have noticed that most people in public restrooms don't look closely at the other people, it's very rude. There is no real problem with this, it's been made up. Ottava is pretending that gender shifting causes some horrible social problem, by frustrating our Natural Right to Know the True Gender of Everyone in the Bathroom. Personally, when I'm there, I have other business to attend to. Maybe Ottava stares, trying to find Offenders. That could explain a lot.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

If it's fraud, it's fraud. I'm not convinced that I support affirmative action, which creates this issue. Race is not a biological reality. (Let's see what Ottava does with that1). It's a complex question, because there is familial disadvantage, historical harm that has been passed down.

If a person routinely looks "black," then they may suffer from general discrimination. To remedy this, certain remedies might be appropriate, but if these remedies are so much benefit that a person would want to fake being black in order to get them, something has gone drastically wrong. I have a black daughter, and she's suffered discrimination, I'm pretty convinced, and there is no way that this is going to be compensated by some "benefit," other than the fact that she's astonishingly beautiful. She's got amazing tribal markings on her eyes, some guy iisn't going to have a chance!

What I'd have wanted for her was institutional caution against discrimination, not some special benefit.

The thinking behind the discrimination was thinking that is like Ottava's. That some "races" are more likely to be defective, but it would never be said that way, not any more. Rather, what we saw was an assumption that she was "just that way," whereas with a white kid, we knew, the school's problems with her would have been considered remediable. After all, you know how "they" are. Too bad nothing can be done, some of "them" are just that way. Of course we love her, she's a wonderful child, we are sorry to see her be unable to attend, but I'm afraid she has problems we can't deal with, some children like her are just too far gone. It's not her fault that she's one of "them."

This was a four-year old girl, just through major upheavals, coming from a different culture with radically different norms, and actually doing quite well, all things considered. In a different school, no problem. It was surprising. The problem school was highly progressive, on the surface, a research institution affiliated with a university. They did not follow their own policies, which provided clear guidance on how to handle the situation that had arisen. We could have fought it, but then realized we didn't want our daughter exposed to the attitudes.

Racism is not dead, but it's gone into hiding.

[that one guy]

Could a mod please split off Ottava's trans-bashing to somewhere else (preferably a nice dark room filled with grues) as it is entirely off-topic? Thanks.

Actually, maybe the whole kit and kaboodle discussion of what to call body parts as well.

What the heck was this thread about? Do I really need to go 2.5 pages back to find out?

I find your avatar really fitting given the current convo. It was a survey FireyAngel was doing of people who pose as women on WP who are biologically male yet not transgender.

Wait, you mean Reagan had a female persona on the internet*? Or arpanet**? Or maybe Margaret Thatcher was his sockpuppet***?

*Oh nevermind, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
**Look it up.
***Actually, that kinda make sense...

I was hinting at the facepalm and the "Aw Jeez, not THIS shit again" part.

[The Adversary]

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.

Fascinating. What about this, then: an old friend of mine is thinking of doing a breast-reduction-operation. I asked her: she wears bras size 36H, (and she is not obese). To put it bluntly: she is huge. 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?

PS: to Horsey: no, I will not introduce you

[A Horse With No Name]

PS: to Horsey: no, I will not introduce you

[SB_Johnny]

I was hinting at the facepalm and the "Aw Jeez, not THIS shit again" part.

Yeah, but it's hard not to imagine he and Ms. Thatcher swapping undies at summit meetings.

[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: Thu 10th November 2011, 11:43pm

[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: Fri 11th November 2011, 12:02am

[Rhindle]

I got my wisdom teeth pulled. I'm doomed.

[lonza leggiera]

Ottava, you're reading what you want the articles to say, not what they actually say. It's the classic modern-conservative problem.

As for what's clear and what isn't, the first article says, in paragraph 2, "The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable." It seems more likely to me that by "madness," he's referring to the fact that this was the prevailing theory, and not necessarily a specific reference to the mental states of SRS patients.
.....

Your interpretation of what McHugh might have meant seems to be based on a reading only of the NARTH news item which Ottava linked to. 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[preceding struck through comment was apparently a misunderstanding on my part—see below] was one McHugh wrote for the conservative religious magazine First Things, whose publisher's stated purpose is "to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society." The relevant quotations, with sufficient context to show the incorrectness of your proposed interpretation, are:

We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness.
....
As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

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" (I presume the "it" here is referring to gender dysphoria, the condition which sex reassignment surgery was supposed to be treating). Presumably McHugh realised—as Ottava apparently does not—that most of his colleagues would regard surgery as a perfectly legitimate treatment for certain types of mental illness—provided only that it was effective. The reason McHugh gives for the termination of sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins is not that the condition being treated was a mental illness, but that the treatment was supposedly shown to have been ineffective.

Judgmentally: Jeff, please spare us the Catholic "social engineering".

It has nothing to do with religion and all to do with psychology.

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[apologies to Ottava for the preceding gratuitous speculation] the above-quoted assertion would suggest. The first is an interview recorded on the occasion of his participation as a plenary speaker in the 2010 Mere Anglican conference, where he acknowledges that "biblically based" societal expectations were "part and parcel of [his] commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships", and deprecates homosexuality as "erroneous desire".

The second is an article McHugh wrote for the March 28, 2005 issue of the weekly Standard, in which he serves up several of the easily refuted blatant falsehoods circulated by religiously conservative antievolutionists as supposedly showing up the deficiencies of evolutionary theory (which, like them, McHugh keeps referring to as "Darwinism").

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera: Fri 11th November 2011, 1:14pm

[Malleus]

I got my wisdom teeth pulled. I'm doomed.

I'm doomed as well, as four of my front teeth are capped. It made a big difference to my smile though, and a big difference to the way I felt about myself. Fuck what God thinks.

[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.