Are you seriously arguing using the wording of a few surgeons that are advertising their transgender surgery services as if this is an absolute definition? They can claim all that, or "say that they" create a vagina, labia, clitoris and all those other things but that doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is altering current organs to appear like different ones. They do not have the function of a natural vagina, they are a modified penis that simply looks like one. What they are are creating imitations. I could go into more graphic detail but I'll spare the forum that. The transsexual vagina is an imitation vagina typically created from the penis, scrotum, and possibly other tissues from the body grafted in. Look this up for me, does the transsexual vagina keep a pH relative to a real vagina? What about the Bulbourethral gland/Bartholin's gland? How about prostatic fluid/vaginal fluid? It may look like a vagina, but it doesn't function as one and is lacking anatomical features you may not see.This is inaccurate. The following are links to the sites of two doctors who perform SRS and they say that they create a vagina, labia, clitoris, et al. through surgery not "imitations" of those body parts. The problem is that you are defining genitalia in terms of their origins when genitalia are actually defined in terms of their structure regardless of their origins.
Papillon Center - Dr. McGinn SRS, HRT, and Electrolysis
Male to Female Gender Reassignment Surgery
Other sources use the same language. Unless you have a source to demonstrate that these doctors who, unlike you, perform SRS are incorrect, then your argument holds no water.
Also, the fact that I am not an SRS performing surgeon doesn't negate any of what I've argued.
Let's establish a few things: You say you look at defining sex with a more "whole" picture by looking at DNA and genitals/anatomy. It has been shown that a transsexual's DNA remains unchanged from their birth DNA. Their genitals are formed from their birth genitals and lack the normal reproductive functions of natural genitals for their desired sex. What they have is an imitation created by surgical means to appear aesthetically like a vagina or penis. These imitation organs lack the proper physiological functions of natural, real sexual organs created through development as instructed by the person's DNA.
If you took a DNA sample from a transsexual the results will say that they are their birth sex. If you look at reproductive function you would find that they have no reproduction function, that was removed/destroyed when their imitative reproductive organs were created.
You are ignoring genetics and placing your definition on aesthetics and the advertisements of a few surgeons that are advertising their surgical services. Biologically their sex has not been changed. You can argue that the ethics of their gender has been changed, but their sex remains the same.
Last edited by digsbe; 06-09-13 at 06:29 PM.
I a seeing a transgender specialist. If I decide to get hormones and pass I expect to be called she.
Well, I'd like to see those because under the discussion section in your other that's exactly what it says. It states that the results may not be accurate because of those reasons among SEVERAL others.That's one study. There are several other studies that I do not have the links to.
Other more recent studies check people who are NOT on hormones and they found that being on hormones or not has no impact on the results. None at all.
What I meant by this was a naturally occurring hormonal imbalance. I've also read that certain medications or hormones that a mother took during pregnancy and/or breastfeeding could cause some kind of chemical imbalance.No, and this is key. As I said above, there was no difference found in people on hormones verses people not on hormones.
I understand that. I'm saying that the exact cause has NOT yet been determined. You have hypotheses based on some sketchy evidence. Now if I could look at some of those other larger sample sized studies, that would be great.One study. There are others.
The studies don't rule out anything because the information is pretty new. However, the studies have been reporting consistent findings. When you get consistent findings across several studies, you can start to draw conclusions from these findings... and the conclusions clearly point to a biological, not a psychological issue.
Okay.I never did.
For children, a lot of issues are black or white. I understand that everything is not.Because you don't by how you post. This is not a binary issue... it's not either all fine and happy or devastating and destructive and it remains that way. If you think it's black or white, then you don't understand the issue.
I have yet to see the evidence to support this sudden change in opinion. Seems like a PC decision to me.Experts and those in the psychological community... who would know... say it is not. Your denial is irrelevant.
Australian researchers have identified a significant link between a gene involved in testosterone action and male-to-female transsexualism.
DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene.
BBC NEWS | Health | Transsexual gene link identified
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.