Former Boxing Promotor Frank Maloney to undergo gender reassignment surgery

Brussels Sprout · 10-08-2014 01:35PM #1

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 · 10-08-2014 01:50PM

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 · 10-08-2014 01:52PM

(In before Links234)

eviltwin · 10-08-2014 01:52PM

Good for her.

Cantremember · 10-08-2014 01:55PM

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 · 10-08-2014 01:56PM

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

wretcheddomain · 10-08-2014 01:56PM

Cantremember wrote: »

What a simple view of life.

Thanks for that evidence-based hard hitting rebuke.

Hotfail.com · 10-08-2014 01:57PM

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 · 10-08-2014 01:58PM

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 · 10-08-2014 01:58PM

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. · 10-08-2014 01:58PM

He's going to make one ugly chick.

Davarus Walrus · 10-08-2014 01:59PM

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

Cantremember · 10-08-2014 02:00PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Thanks for that evidence-based hard hitting rebuke.

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

Amirani · 10-08-2014 02:00PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:00PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:01PM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

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

AFAIK you can be gay and homophobic.

eviltwin · 10-08-2014 02:02PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:03PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:03PM

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

wretcheddomain · 10-08-2014 02:03PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:06PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:07PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:08PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:08PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:15PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:16PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:17PM

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

I can already see where this is gonna go!

Amirani · 10-08-2014 02:17PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:18PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:21PM

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 · 10-08-2014 02:21PM

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.

Former Boxing Promotor Frank Maloney to undergo gender reassignment surgery

Comments