Former Boxing Promotor Frank Maloney to undergo gender reassignment surgery

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So he is having his gender changed... to cover up past allegations?
mmmmmhmmmmm.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. She is having sex reassignment surgery.

It doesn't actually say that in the article either. I know gender reassignment is usually followed by the word, "surgery" but the impression I get from the article is she is undergoing social transition. They've just used a bad choice of words. It doesn't even mention hormonal treatment.

If she's just coming out she won't be at a stage where she's accepted for SRS unless she's been living life as a woman but not in the general public's eye.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Oka bunch of questions for Lyaiera or Links234 (sorry)

1) While I understand why on a personal level having Transexuality considered as a mental illness is insulting and why its incorrect from a Scientific viewpoint, what is the correct way to refer to the condition of Transexuality

That's more of a political question than anything else. In the last psychiatric Diagnostic Manual the illness of being transgender was removed, and the illness of suffering from gender dysphoria put in, with the approved treatment being transitioning to the appropriate gender, hormone treatments, surgery, etc. if wished for. There are some who argue that being transgender is not any form of illness, simply that physiological issues need to be addressed like a hormone imbalance in any other person. There are others who see removing any mention of transgender issues from the DSM as dangerous, simply because it could allow healthcare providers and doctors to refuse to treat trans people, and that without a suitable "medical" condition to write on a piece of paper, we'd be ignored. There are others who see being transgender as a disability. Not their mind, but that their body is disabled such as someone who needs a prosthetic, as you pointed out. The general consensus is that medical and psychological support is needed, and whatever ensures that's there is tolerable. What to call it yourself, I have no idea. I just treat it and get on with life.

Is it acceptable to term it a neurological/physical condition, to which Transition can be considered as a cure/solution.

I would be more inclined to consider it a physical condition, my brain is fine it's my body that's wrong. People have posited the idea that if you could take a pill and be happy with your body, would you? Some would, some wouldn't but it's still fantasy. Most would prefer to take a pill and have their body match their mind, but that's fantasy too. I think like a lot of issues, there's no "Cure" but people do learn to live with it and transitioning for 99% of people is the best way to do that.

I am trying to form this is in a fairly sensitive way and I am not attaching a value judgment to this (the same way I wouldn't attach a value judgement to someone being born with a missing limb having a strong desire for a prosthetic), but the fact that Transexual people are willing to undergo to great efforts to obtain 'corrective' treatment thats arduous by all accounts, can it really be viewed in the same light as say homosexuality where it can be argued that its society (rather than biology) that causes issues for homosexuals and there is a fairly logical Evolutionary explanation for the occurrence of homosexuality using Game Theory and Animal Behavior models.

I think the similarities between trans and gay people is mostly to do with political expediency and shared history. And as a reaction to a cis/heteronormative world.

If society was 100% happy with trans people transitioning socially, a lot of trans people would still transition medically. Transition is multi-faceted.

As for the evolutionary imperative idea, I think that presents a misguided and utlitarian idea as to why trans people exist. There's definitely evidence of "binary" gendered animals crossing over their animal society's gender roles. A lot of this is from looking at older studies where animals were seen to be living a "gay" role, but now are being rethought of as a transgender occurrence within the animal kingdom. And with regards to evolutionary reasons, there's evidence of trans-gender people going back millenia, but whether there's an evolutionary imperative or not (which would still be a misunderstanding of evolution) I think is irrelevant seeing as trans people exist. There's no real "why" to evolution, there just is. And trans people definitely exist.

2nd: How are things like cross dressing/drag viewed within the Trans-community, like are they viewed as being unhelpful because people equate Transexuality with these groups or are they viewed in a positive light because of their challenges to the idea of binary genders in society. (as a wider point, doesn't Transexuality perhaps indicate the importance of physical/biological/chromosomal sex to gender identity?)

A lot of trans people "started out" as cross dressers. For years I thought I was just a weirdo cross dresser. I wished I was trans and there was a simple reason for why I felt this way, but thought trans people had some special missing ingredient. Eventually I realised I was being stupid, and if I was dreaming of being a woman every day of my life then it's pretty obvious I am trans. I just had to accept it.

Some trans people don't like crossdressers, they see them as weird people with obsessions with frilly dresses and over the top displays of femininity. I think a lot of that behaviour from crossdressers (and trans people on occasion) is a reaction to the oppressive nature of society, and in many cases a form of internalised misogyny. I've spoken to a few more "modern" cross dressers though. They're perfectly normal guys, who just happen to like wearing skirts and make up. I often think that society could theoretically get to a point where cross dressing simply doesn't exist. A man looking feminine will still be seen as a man, just in a skirt and as someone fully happy being a man.

As for the "importance" question. I have no doubt that trans people, and people playing with gender roles and gender identities are outliers. I do think it will become more common as people become more tolerant. The majority of people will be happy with their sex (even without knowing that they may not be entirely of their sex according to their chromosomes) but I think the idea of binaries will escape from us. Something that scientists sexing animals have known for a long, long time.

3rd: Leading on from what I just said in brackets, having been presumably having been raised within one Gender and coming from the view point that Gender is a social construct, while the disjunct between between mind and physical body is something that is completely understandable to 'correct' with Transitioning, is your gender something you feel would also need to change to feel comfortable e.g wearing feminine clothing etc, its ok not to answer this as I understand that its a bit personal, but I'm trying to untwine as a hetro male that fits neatly into the dimorphic norm how as a Trans person you would view the differences between Gender/Biological Sex, like Lyaiera as you just said in your post
, why is it important that she/he has been socially a woman for the desire to Transition to be considered less valid?

the last bit: it's important for doctors that she lives socially as a woman, purely to see that this is real to her. Think of it as easing yourself into things, if you have doubts about your transition after wearing a skirt to the bar and this continues, then maybe genital surgery isn't for you.

As for your broader question, I often thought that myself. Would I be happy with a physical transition if I couldn't socially transition. Would I be happy being seen as a woman if I didn't medically transition. The reality is that it's all tied together, at least for me.

The typical, moronic radfem argument used is "Trans people wouldn't transition if they had to have periods!!!" Which firstly, is plainly wrong, but secondly a lot of women who do have periods take a lot of medication to deal with issues arising from them, they worry about pregnancy, etc. However very few would be totally rid of them. I will never have a female reproductive system. If I could have it I would, but it's simply impossible at the moment (although the earliest reassignment surgeries did try to do this.) What that means is that I will never be 100% happy with myself. I probably won't be 100% happy with my social transition. But few people ever are 100% happy with their lives. Women who have mastectomies often have to try hard to cope with it. The reality is life goes on and I'm going to make the best of it.

4th: This one is much less high brow :-/ I was in a gay friendly/alternative bar in Berlin earlier in the year and they actually specifically had the Gents labeled as the Trans toilet, is that something thats beneficially or is it a bit insulting in separating you from people that are female by birth?

I'd find it a bit insulting, I'd also question the legality of it. However you might be mistaken in that the "trans" we're using here is different to the broader "trans" that might be used elsewhere. Transgender is really the umbrella term that includes crossdressers, genderqueer, drag queens, etc. (and there's often debate over that.) Transsexual is the term I use when I want to be specific about myself (and again there's debate over that term.) If there attitude was that only female assigned at birth woman were to use the women's toilet I'd have serious questions about that bar's politics and I probably wouldn't go there. Of course they might just be trying to be inclusive but are instead being misguided.

Apologies for this load of questions and any unintentional offense to any of the LGBT groupings I mentioned, even typing this post I found it difficult very difficult to phrase.

No problem. I often worry I slip up with phrasing too but I'd hope people would read the good intentions I have into it.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's called fighting back.

No need to fight pope,think we all know that the cards on this forum are very much stacked in your favour.

I think everybody believes that happiness is just over the next hill, and that they just need to become X and all will be well. Whether this is going from working in a supermarket to being a popstar, or from being a fat person to a thin one, or a man to a woman, it's all really the same thing, and I don't think anyone really cares about what other people need to do, unless it directly impacts them.

I also don't really understand the cry for complete and universal acceptance. Any transition in life results in a change in how we are perceived, and in our relationships with others. When you go from school to college, from college to work, from being one of the gang to being a manager, it is not unusual for people you used to be friends with to think you've turned into a wanker. And so what? If their perceptions are so important to you, stay as you are. If you want to change your life, go ahead. Just don't expect the whole world to pat you on the back for it.

However, I am offended on behalf of clear thinking and the English language by the pseudo-scientific arguments and nonsensical jargon used by many proponents of trans issues, and I suspect that it is this that people argue against - not that a certain person somewhere wants to have a sex change.

Each to their own and all, But I've seen a few of these gender changes not working to well at all most noticeably Lauren Harries from Celebrity bbuk.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Removed By Mod

see this is a prime example why I will give an alternative point of view on certain subjects in this forum.on lgbt issues there is a certain ring of individuals who if the fellow poster does not accept there black and white definitions on these matters you are subject to a vicious mob attack,insults,bullying and dirty tricks until the poster is forced to desist with his/her valid point.

fran17 wrote: »

see this is a prime example why I will give an alternative point of view on certain subjects in this forum.on lgbt issues there is a certain ring of individuals who if the fellow poster does not accept there black and white definitions on these matters you are subject to a vicious mob attack,insults,bullying and dirty tricks until the poster is forced to desist with his/her valid point.

So you're entire objection to me is that some people, who aren't me, were mean to you. Thanks for that.

fran17 wrote: »

See, this is a prime example why I will give an alternative point of view on certain subjects in this forum. On LGBT issues, there is a certain ring of individuals, who, if the fellow poster does not accept their black and white definitions on these matters, you are subject to a vicious mob attack, insults, bullying and dirty tricks until the poster is forced to desist with his/her valid point.

What are these "black and white" definitions? And what is this "valid" point you're trying to make? Is it about "gay boys and fag hags" again?

Lyaiera wrote: »

But you'll argue against me living my life because some people were mean to you?

This isn't about arguing points on the internet for me. Although I'm happy to help people understand what I'm going through. It's literally about my life, in the real world, will turn out. Taking a contrary viewpoint online is most certainly not what I'm doing, and I don't know why anyone would treat my life like that.

live your life and enjoy every second lyaiera.and if you every go for a moderator position here you got my vote;)

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You're ignoring the point totally.

Which pretty much sums this whole thread up!