Former Boxing Promotor Frank Maloney to undergo gender reassignment surgery

Brussels Sprout

He's famous for promoting the likes of Lennox Lewis in the past.

Boxing promoter Frank Maloney has revealed he is undergoing gender reassignment and now lives as a woman called Kellie.

In an interview in the Mirror, Kellie says: "I was born in the wrong body and I have always known I was a woman."

She is working with transgender group TG Pals, whose managing director, Heather Ashton, told the BBC Kellie had been "incredibly brave and courageous".

As Frank, Maloney guided Lennox Lewis to the world heavyweight title in 1993.

In her interview, Kellie says: "I can't keep living in the shadows, that is why I am doing what I am today. Living with the burden any longer would have killed me.

"What was wrong at birth is now being medically corrected. I have a female brain. I knew I was different from the minute I could compare myself to other children.

"I wasn't in the right body. I was jealous of girls."

What makes this even more interesting is that back in 2004 he was accused of being a homophobic bigot when campaigning for UKIP as a London mayoral candidate. He refused to campaign in Camden saying:

"I don't want to campaign around gays...I don't think they do a lot for society...what I have a problem with is them openly flaunting their sexuality."

He's been married twice and has several children.

Well, better late than never I suppose.

link

wretcheddomain

He'll still be a man after surgery - adding a wig, changing your name and implanting fake organs does not transform one into a woman.

You're born with your gender, he simply prefers the life of the alternative gender.

Skullface McGubbin

(In before Links234)

eviltwin

Good for her.

Cantremember

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He'll still be a man after surgery - adding a wig, changing your name and implanting fake organs does not transform one into a woman.

You're born with your gender, he simply prefers the life of the alternative gender.

What a simple view of life.

Cantremember

If the quote is right it sounds like he's changing from a homophobic male to a homophobic woman.

wretcheddomain

Cantremember wrote: »

What a simple view of life.

Thanks for that evidence-based hard hitting rebuke.

Hotfail.com

Cantremember wrote: »

If the quote is right it sounds like he's changing from a homophobic male to a homophobic woman.

I imagine he said that out or insecurity.

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He'll still be a man after surgery - adding a wig, changing your name and implanting fake organs does not transform one into a woman.

You're born with your gender, he simply prefers the life of the alternative gender.

You are not born with your gender, you are born with your sex. Gender is entirely different.

Cabaal

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He'll still be a man after surgery - adding a wig, changing your name and implanting fake organs does not transform one into a woman.

You're born with your gender, he simply prefers the life of the alternative gender.

And yet the legal definition changes from man to women for the person, so you're wrong in your belief

Sir Osis of Liver.

He's going to make one ugly chick.

Davarus Walrus

I presume it's possible to be transgender and homophobic?

Cantremember

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Thanks for that evidence-based hard hitting rebuke.

I wanted it to match your own. Got it just right obviously.

Amirani

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

What makes this even more interesting is that back in 2004 he was accused of being a homophobic bigot when campaigning for UKIP as a London mayoral candidate.

Transgender persons can be homophobic too. I think the LGBT togetherness is great, and definitely helps in campaigning and lobbying. However it does often give the impression that all LGBT people are supportive of all facets of LGBT. Unfortunately this sometimes isn't the case.

Frank Lee Midere

eviltwin wrote: »

You are not born with your gender, you are born with your sex. Gender is entirely different.

It's isn't really. That's just sociological nonsense.

Hotfail.com

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I presume it's possible to be transgender and homophobic?

AFAIK you can be gay and homophobic.

eviltwin

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's isn't really. That's just sociological nonsense.

Your sex is your a boy or a girl...gender is based on attributes that are either masculine or feminine. Its based on this idea that there is a certain way of behaving depending on your gender, its not that difficult to understand.

whupdedo

Does he get that done free on the n h s ? He'll be still a man no matter what he does, he probably has psychological issues that need to be addressed, rather than getting the gutting knife to his tackle

fran17

the man obviously has some serious mental issues as well as physical.treat the mind before mutilating the body imho

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

You are not born with your gender, you are born with your sex. Gender is entirely different.

One's sex is synonymous with their gender. This was the case for a long time after John Money's unfortunate distinction.

It's true to say that gender roles exist in society that are socially constructed, where a 'man' and a 'woman' are expected to fulfil certain roles. Nobody can argue against these social constructs.

However, from a biological perspective, people are born with a specific sex, and this is synonymous with the gender they're born with. Later in life, if they reject the social constructs hitherto mentioned, they'll reject the gender roles for their sex and yet opt for the alternative...which seems to be a strange way to dismiss gender roles.

In other words, people choose their gender roles based on a combination of environment and growing up. This subjectivity, therefore, is meaningless. We have to stick with objective definitions of gender and sex; and that's what their biology answers. Everything else is sociological PC guff.

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

One's sex is synonymous with their gender. This was the case for a long time after John Money's unfortunate distinction.

It's true to say that gender roles exist in society that are socially constructed, where a 'man' and a 'woman' are expected to fulfil certain roles. Nobody can argue against these social constructs.

However, from a biological perspective, people are born with a specific sex, and this is synonymous with the gender they're born with. Later in life, if they reject the social constructs hitherto mentioned, they'll reject the gender roles for their sex and yet opt for the alternative...which seems to be a strange way to dismiss gender roles.

In other words, people choose their gender roles based on a combination of environment and growing up. This subjectivity, therefore, is meaningless. We have to stick with objective definitions of gender and sex; and that's what their biology answers.

Gender identity has nothing to do with biology. The characteristics that we assign to male/female are largely based on the ideal of what a man or woman should be, how they should behave etc.

Frank Lee Midere

eviltwin wrote: »

Your sex is your a boy or a girl...gender is based on attributes that are either masculine or feminine. Its based on this idea that there is a certain way of behaving depending on your gender, its not that difficult to understand.

It's wrong. Humans are sexually dimorphic animals. We evolved like the vast majority of such animals to have different attributes across the sexes. Culture is added on top of that. But it doesn't change it.

It never occurs to the " social construct" believers to look at the animal kingdom.

Frank Lee Midere

eviltwin wrote: »

Gender identity has nothing to do with biology. The characteristics that we assign to male/female are largely based on the ideal of what a man or woman should be, how they should behave etc.

Who is doing that for animals?

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

The characteristics that we assign to male/female are largely based on the ideal of what a man or woman should be, how they should behave etc.

If you read my quote that you quoted in your post, you'll find I made this distinction and agreed with it.

Indeed, I used that as a premise to dismiss the idea of changing genders.

eviltwin wrote: »

Your sex is your a boy or a girl...gender is based on attributes that are either masculine or feminine. Its based on this idea that there is a certain way of behaving depending on your gender, its not that difficult to understand.

Let's take this as true.

If it were true, then it would mean this surgery would render him to to be, according to your definitions, a "feminine man".

Your distinction proves my point.

Cantremember

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If you read my quote that you quoted in your post, you'll find I made this distinction and agreed with it.

Indeed, I used that as a premise to dismiss the idea of changing genders.



Let's take this as true.

If it were true, then it would mean this surgery would render him to to be, according to your definitions, a "feminine man".

Your distinction proves my point.

You may as well refer to people as mammals and number them accordingly. Human life is more complicated than 2+2=4

wretcheddomain

Cantremember wrote: »

You may as well refer to people as mammals and number them accordingly. Human life is more complicated than 2+2=4

Again, no argument, no evidence, no logic - just sociological obfuscatory waffle.

How Soon Is Now

Jaysus not another one of these threads......

I can already see where this is gonna go!

Amirani

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's wrong. Humans are sexually dimorphic animals. We evolved like the vast majority of such animals to have different attributes across the sexes. Culture is added on top of that. But it doesn't change it.

It never occurs to the " social construct" believers to look at the animal kingdom.

Should dentists look at the animal kingdom and conclude that people shouldn't bother to brush their teeth?

I see where you're coming from and it is relevant, but in certain areas humans are extremely different from all other animals on this planet, despite sharing a similar biological history.

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If you read my quote that you quoted in your post, you'll find I made this distinction and agreed with it.

Indeed, I used that as a premise to dismiss the idea of changing genders.



Let's take this as true.

If it were true, then it would mean this surgery would render him to to be, according to your definitions, a "feminine man".

Your distinction proves my point.

She is a woman as far as I am concerned, she isn't harming anyone and if she is now living the life she feels she should be then best of luck to her.

Spunge

Cabaal wrote: »

And yet the legal definition changes from man to women for the person, so you're wrong in your belief

but not the medical definition.

you wont be getting ovarian cancer and you can still get prostate cancer.

wazky

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Jaysus not another one of these threads......

I can already see where this is gonna go!

Ah come on now, that's below the belt.

Cantremember

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Again, no argument, no evidence, no logic - just sociological obfuscatory waffle.

The argument escapes you. You have no argument for your view except that sex is what you are born with and that's it. It is a mechanistic or animalistic view of humanity. It's an impoverished sociology. Live your own logic and abandon the "sociological obfuscatory waffle": what are you doing on the internet? Interacting in a sociological milieu and using a language which had constructed reality? The logic alone approach leads to the gas chambers.

wretcheddomain

eviltwin wrote: »

She is a woman as far as I am concerned, she isn't harming anyone and if she is now living the life she feels she should be then best of luck to her.

I just don't get this.

The proponents of the theory say there's a distinction between boy and girl and masculine and feminine.

Yet, you're claiming he's both a biological girl and feminine in terms of social construction.

The whole thing falls apart because you're trying to have it both ways (pardon the pun). She (which we can, for the sake of argument, call a social construction) is still a man (biologically).

eviltwin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I just don't get this.

The proponents of the theory say there's a distinction between boy and girl and masculine and feminine.

Yet, you're claiming he's both a biological girl and feminine in terms of social construction.

The whole thing falls apart because you're trying to have it both ways (pardon the pun). She (which we can, for the sake of argument, call a social construction) is still a man (biologically).

He can't get a womb and ovaries but so what? A woman who has a hysterectomy doesn't cease to be a woman because she no longer has a female reproductive system.

Spunge

eviltwin wrote: »

He can't get a womb and ovaries but so what? A woman who has a hysterectomy doesn't cease to be a woman because she no longer has a female reproductive system.

Just like a dude who gets his testicles removed doesnt cease to be a dude.

eviltwin

Spunge wrote: »

Just like a dude who gets his testicles removed doesnt cease to be a dude.

If you knew Frank/Kerrie how would you refer to her?

DrumSteve

Seriously where are all the puns?

Spunge

eviltwin wrote: »

If you knew Frank/Kerrie how would you refer to her?

I would use the female words out of respect. Obviously they want to be referred to as female but im just speaking objectively for sake of argument.

BarryLyndon

Kerrie will put the box back into boxing

gordongekko

eviltwin wrote: »

If you knew Frank/Kerrie how would you refer to her?

I'd still call her nuts

Wibbs

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's true to say that gender roles exist in society that are socially constructed, where a 'man' and a 'woman' are expected to fulfil certain roles. Nobody can argue against these social constructs.

Partially. One hand feeds the other. Where do you think these social constructs originated in the first place?

However, from a biological perspective, people are born with a specific sex,

Nope science doesn't agree with you. Between "classic" male and female there is an overlap, a grey area. And this can be demonstrated physiologically. Male and female brains differ in a number of organisational ways for a start. You even see this in the range of conditions and how they affect the genders differently. More men are stutterers, left handed on the autistic scale. Women tend to recover better after stroke as many functions aren't as localised in the female brain. Even sensory perception differs. Women have better colour vision and sense of smell in general, men are better at tracking movement. It's a long list. However as I said there is overlap between the two.

When it comes to gender identity there is another overlap. We all start out as "female" in the womb(physically speaking), a burst of hormone in pregnancy switches on the "male" bit. If that's interrupted or changed even slightly it could cause gender to be less set in the adult. There''s a few theories as to the why and how of it all.

Nevertheless there are case studies that show that personal gender is very much internal and social conditioning is less in the mix. Intersex children and adults a good example. People who are born with not fully formed or over formed genitals. In the past these poor kids were usually assigned a gender by doctors. So an underdeveloped penis was removed and they were sent out in the world as a girl, yet they would nearly always seek out the gender they felt right in in adulthood.

Now I'm not dismissing mental illness in some cases as that would be stupid to do so, but given the struggles and the long road so many of these people walked to become who they knew themselves to be I'd reckon the majority are nowhere close to mentally ill.

TL;DR it's far more nature than nurture.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Should dentists look at the animal kingdom and conclude that people shouldn't bother to brush their teeth?

Maybe they should One thing that's noticeable about ancient human remains is how few cavities they have and how uncrowded their teeth tend to be. A dentist in the paleolithic would be twiddling their thumbs waiting for clients and orthodontists would be near unemployable. Their diet and lifestyle and resultant mouth bacteria and environment was far better for dental health than ours. Put it another way, wolves don't get cavities or plaque, yet they're pimping dental doggie chews on TV...

padd b1975

eviltwin wrote: »

Good for her.

His wife??

The Diabolical Monocle

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I presume it's possible to be transgender and homophobic?

lol

Mrs Garrison.

Links234

*sigh*

No, being transgender is not a mental illness, and a growing body of scientific evidence shows that it is something physical from birth, for example:

Transsexual differences caught on brain scan
Study In Transsexuals: Significant Genetic Link To Gender Identity

As well as that, most major psychological associations will tell you that being transgender is not a mental illness, and warns against treating it as if it were.

padd b1975

Would it not have been simpler for him to change his name to "Francis"?

KungPao

eviltwin wrote: »

If you knew Frank/Kerrie how would you refer to her?

Frerrie?

Kerank?

Omackeral

padd b1975 wrote: »

Would it not have been simpler for him to change his name to "Francis"?

That's still a man's name. Frances is the female version.

LiveIsLife

Well this is an unexpected story. Call me closed minded if you want, but I don't think I'll ever accept transgenders as normal.

fran17

anyone notice the boards.ie advertising is showing a link to a web site where you can meet and date Asian ladyboys lol

padd b1975

fran17 wrote: »

anyone notice the boards.ie advertising is showing a link to a web site where you can meet and date Asian ladyboys lol

I think that's related to what you search for on Google chief....

fran17

padd b1975 wrote: »

I think that's related to what you search for on Google chief....

no no I much prefer the European type.but frank moloney would be stretching it;)