This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
LGBT Q&A/General Thread.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
Then explain how you weren't making light of transpeople. I've got popcorn.
How do you feel about movies like The Nutty Professor, or Shallow Hal that make light of fat people?
How do you feel about movies like White Chicks?
Or even earlier films / shows that depicted trangenders, such as Harvey Korman on the Carrol Burnett show.
Or even Buggs freakin Bunny?
Ill save an hour of providing examples and just suggest you look
here
to see where "making light" of transgendered people, in excatly the same manner as Lahendhi did in his posts, has been around in direct public view for decades.
Now, if you want to tell me that you find all of these examples as "contemptible and even disgusting.", than that is fine, otherwise, you are overreacting to Lahendhi's earlier humor.
Look, people "make fun" of people all the time, for just about anything. Too fat, to skinny, too tall, too short,,,,it doesnt matter. I work out a lot....and I get called "muscle nerd" at work because I play WoW. (and yes, bodybuilders have been made fun of on TV many times as well)
If someone started yelling obscene, derogatory comments at you because of the way you are, I would not only understand your anger, I would be the first in line to step up to defend your right to look and act however you see fit.
Post by
Adamsm
Lahendhi wasn't being 'funny' he was trolling, same as he always does; for several months, at the time of the links that Mila provided, he said he was going to undergo the gender reassignment surgery; I myself always saw it as pure trolling at it's worst, but you should be able to understand why Mila finds that kind of thing not amusing in the least.
Edit: Hell, you'd probably react unfavourably if he had done it with Christianity.
Post by
MyTie
No, because like I said the genetics would likely outweigh any environmental influences. If you dye your hair blonde for long enough, it doesn't miraculously turn naturally blonde, because the environment is not changing your chemical composition. The difference between genders and species in terms of DNA and brain functions/structure would make trans speciesism almost impossible, I would imagine.
But what makes a person male, if they were born a female? If the mind of a person is male, but they desire to be a female, and define as a female, do you insist that they are wrong, or can they be female simply because they desire to be? Are you going to tell them that they are wrong for that desire?
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If there needn't be any qualification to be a transgender person other than a desire to be, and thus freed from the "WRONG" body, then why not transspecies? Why can't a person stop being a person, and be medically changed into a horse, simply because they feel like a horse? If they can't, then why not? How is that fair at all?
Post by
Magician22773
You have a person that generally speaks in Third Person here. I think that shows that they do not exactly take their presence on the board all that seriously. It does not surprise me at all that they decided to create a new persona, Shaniquia, and proceed to post in as a female, or pre-op tansgender, as a way to further make light of their entire presence in this forum.
Edit: Hell, you'd probably react unfavourably if he had done it with Christianity.
It would all come down to context of the joking. Specificaly, if Lahendi assumed an new persona, "The Reverend Lahendi", and started quoting Bible verses as a response to questions in his Q&A thread, I actually would get the joke.
If the conversation is about pedophiles, and a Catholiic priest joke gets tossed in there...I get it.
If someone comes on here and starts "joking" about my God being a unicorn, or something like that, then yes, I would find it offensive.
Again, it is the context of the joking, and I did not see anything out of line, let alone "contemptible and even disgusting", in the posts that I read there. If you did, then I guess anyone with a mental illness should also have been horribly offended by it, because it also hinted at schitzophrenia.
If there needn't be any qualification to be a transgender person other than a desire to be, and thus freed from the "WRONG" body, then why not transspecies? Why can't a person stop being a person, and be medically changed into a horse, simply because they feel like a horse? If they can't, then why not? How is that fair at all?
Exhibit A
Post by
Skreeran
What does the LGBT community in general think of the bronies?
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Hate it!
... but that's just me. I've heard that the percentage of the people watching, that don't identify as heterosexual, is pretty high though.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm just curious, because, while I identify as heterosexual myself, it seems to me that another community battling against gender stereotypes--in particular, one that is frequently seen as "gay" by the common people-- might be of interest to the LGBT community.
To put it another way, I may be straight, but I'm fighting a similar battle. Since the homosexual community has been fighting longer, I'm curious as to how they see us newcomers.
Post by
asakawa
There seems to be some attempt to figure out the "rules of transsexuality". There really are no rules to this sort of thing and every case may be different. The process of either living with or seeking to change oneself based on transsexuality is never done out of flippancy or on a whim. It's a difficult and painful process that takes years and disrupts every aspect of one's life. It is only ever done because of a deep and intense disparity of physical and mental gender that's very difficult for those who have never experienced it to understand.
Could we please bear this in mind while discussing this very emotive subject and be very sensitive to those who talk openly about it from first-hand experience. People who place themselves at any point on the transsexual spectrum may (almost certainly) have received very little support in real life so let's make it clear that they are entirely supported here.
Curiosity is good and seeking to learn more about the human experience from people who have had a very different view of it but please try not to see this as a debate (unless, I suppose, a specific point is raised as such).(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Patty
I'm just curious, because, while I identify as heterosexual myself, it seems to me that another community battling against gender stereotypes--in particular, one that is frequently seen as "gay" by the common people-- might be of interest to the LGBT community.
To put it another way, I may be straight, but I'm fighting a similar battle. Since the homosexual community has been fighting longer, I'm curious as to how they see us newcomers.
Well I'm not a brony because I hate the term but I functionally am. So I guess you already know my stance.If there needn't be any qualification to be a transgender person other than a desire to be, and thus freed from the "WRONG" body, then why not transspecies? Why can't a person stop being a person, and be medically changed into a horse, simply because they feel like a horse? If they can't, then why not? How is that fair at all?
Because if your brain is wired up like a horse, you won't have the intellectual capacity to be able to decide that you're in the wrong body, in all likelihood, or even to distinguish that you are thinking like a horse and not a human. You would probably be unable to make that judgement in the first place.
Post by
MyTie
Because if your brain is wired up like a horse, you won't have the intellectual capacity to be able to decide that you're in the wrong body, in all likelihood, or even to distinguish that you are thinking like a horse and not a human. You would probably be unable to make that judgement in the first place.
By this philosophy, if your brain is wired like a man, then you can't desire to be a woman because you don't even know what that would be like, right?
I'm of the opinion that this "Do whatever you want to be happy" mentality is a bit, well, disregarding the essence of what it means to be who you are, as if there is something about a person that needs fixing.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'll remove it all, asakawa, as the intended party saw it.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Patty
By this philosophy, if your brain is wired like a man, then you can't desire to be a woman because you don't even know what that would be like, right?
I'm of the opinion that this "Do whatever you want to be happy" mentality is a bit, well, disregarding the essence of what it means to be who you are, as if there is something about a person that needs fixing.
No, because men and women are equally capable of higher level reasoning. Most other species are not, including horses. And if you are unhappy with your own body image, of course you will do what you can to make yourself more happy. That's common sense of anyone trying to boost their self-esteem.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Well, I'm not trans myself lol. I'm kind of adapting and trying to apply a lot of personal experiences and things I've learned to the topic at hand. But hopefully my answers are satisfactory.
And from what I know and with a little extrapolating, it being physiological =/= being a choice. It's of course a choice to change your physical gender to match yourself through surgery and hormonal treatment, but I doubt that it's a choice to actually have your mind aligned as a woman trapped in a man's body or vice-versa. Similarly to homosexuality, I'd imagine that very few individuals would choose to be trans because of the difficulties/stigma that they would have to face.
Post by
MyTie
I'm wondering if patty thinks that the instance where IT IS A CHOICE BUT NOT PHYSIOLOGICAL is invalid, or not real.
Well, Patty can presumably answer but I still don't follow the distinction. The article you quoted talks about people choosing to dress in order to be happy or content; would you not agree that what makes them content is a biological matter? Or are you asking about the case where someone chooses to dress even though that doesn't particularly make them happy or content, just as an abstract matter of fashion or mood?
The article explained that there are a variety of reasons for it. I'm wondering what the difference is between someone who decides to be transgender for no biological reason, and someone who decides to be transspecies for no biological reason. If a man can make himself into a woman, why can a man not make himself into anything? My question is where is the logical end to it.
Post by
asakawa
The article is gone now so I can't reference it but I have some experience of this topic from my real life and that experience informs me that "transsexualism" is never a choice. Some cases of transvestism are chosen but not transsexualism since its very nature is not a decided thing.
As such I can understand that these comparisons to being "transspecies" and "choosing" appear very flippant to those experiencing the process and might not be conducive to a good exchange of ideas.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.