• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181, 607]

Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Yes, we can redefine biology on a whim like we do towards elements of gender. :lamo

Maybe it would be wise if you guys just stopped using this goal post shift?

You're missing the point, on purpose I'd wager.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

It would be grown from your stem cells.

Also we transplant a heart or liver all the time. Hell we even to faces now. Dont forget the artificial heart.

Do you understand how this process and stem cells in general work or are you relying on the theoretical and saying this is going to be possible in 20 years? The stem cells that exist to be created into those organs have been used. Current cells would have to be de-differentiated to the level of an embryonic stem cell, have the genetics altered to be the opposite sex, artificially grown and matured into an organ and then surgically placed into a patient without rejection (self stem cells would have little to no rejection).

Transplanting a uterus, vagina, ovaries, uterine tubes and other female organs into a male body that anatomically is not created to house such things causes a problem from a surgical standpoint. Giving a woman male organs may be easier due to the external nature of the system but the opposite would pose problems. Anatomically there are serious problems that need to be overcome and everything you say is theoretical.

So far, yes, there are limits. But biology is more than the outward appearance, and not just in a psychological way. Traits are also genetic, and markers on DNA likely influence which traits are emphasized. This can likely lead to a person who is fir all purposes female, but with male genitals. The body in conflict the person's biological makeup.

How so? I'm not discussing people with genetic abnormalities or people who are intersexed. What do you mean by "for all purposes female, but with male genitals"?
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

The brain is a part of ones genetics, not separate. We're speaking of a biological function and not a mental one.

When the genetic marker has been identified, let me know. Also, if that were to happen, there would probably be many changing from pro-choice to pro-life...
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

You're missing the point, on purpose I'd wager.

Nope, not at all. You just don't understand human constructs and so you define everything as a human construct.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

When the genetic marker has been identified, let me know. Also, if that were to happen, there would probably be many changing from pro-choice to pro-life...

You might want to investigate. Recent theory is as I've explained it. Your last comment makes no sense to me btw.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Nope, not at all. You just don't understand human constructs and so you define everything as a human construct.
.

Liberal thinking people can be anyone they want just by saying, aren't you aware of that?:lamo

 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Since the start, my only argument has been that sex is more than just DNA.

Right, and you are siting secondary characteristics that are dependent on genetic sex, that can simply be altered, to not conform with the biological sex

This is the definition of sex from the source that you provided

Right, it's cited the secondary characteristics that are dependent on and derived from genetic sex.

see the mention of "sex linked characteristics "

In a human, the normal chromosomes complement is 46, 44 of which are autosomes ***while 2 distinct chromosomes are deemed sex chromosomes, which determine the sex of an organism and various sex linked characteristics.

we use those to determine sex because they are normally an outward expression of the possible xx and xy genetic pairing that determines sex. If you had a frog that visually looked female, it would not be female *if* genetic testing ultimately determined it was male.

Hence, pointing to the normal outward expressions of genetic sex does not make an argument for those characteristics superseding genetic sex


According to that definition, is sex more than just DNA? Yes or no.

No, because those "characters and qualities" and "the physical distinction between male and female" are based on observational data of normal genetic expression of genetic sex.

They do not supersede genetic sex, they are simply outward expressions of it
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

You might want to investigate. Recent theory is as I've explained it. Your last comment makes no sense to me btw.

You would really need to think about it...
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Nope, not at all. You just don't understand human constructs and so you define everything as a human construct.

I understand find. We learn every day, and adjust according to our new understanding. To do this, we must invent, invent language, models, construct an understanding of the new information. It is not as subjective as critiquing the latest Star Trek movie, but it still requires human analysis and interpretation. A construct. Just your limited interpretation of biology is focused solely on the external, as if biology didn't effect what you can see. That s your construct if the word biology.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Every post on here is either anecdotal or unsubstantiated unless it links to an expert citation. What do you think an opinion is all about?

Experts huh. That usually means someone who agrees with my side while disagreeing with yours. Experts are bought and sold in courthouses all across American everyday.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Experts huh. That usually means someone who agrees with my side while disagreeing with yours. Experts are bought and sold in courthouses all across American everyday.

True, sadly. But it s still better to listen to some one who knows something than someone who really doesn't.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

What drives sexual development is not separate. As far as having a "sex change" where one attempts to say that they have changed their sex what is inaccurate is to only focus on how the external genitalia appear.
I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.

Sexual characteristics do include physiological characteristics brought about by sexual development, but even so a transsexual person does not have the anatomical or physiological characteristics of their desired sex. A man that has surgery to change the penis and accompanying region to appear female does not have a vagina. What is created is not a vagina, but merely something that looks like one. The same is true for a FTM transsexual. Those created "organs" are aesthetic imitations. Physiologically their characteristics are still according to their birth sex, their body unaided by treatment will function as it does according to their birth sex and they will need to be on constant hormone therapy.
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.

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.

Let's go through this again:

Does DNA determine sex? Yes, your genetic code contains the instructions for your sexual development. XY is male and XX is female.
Are sexual organs part of what makes someone their sex? Yes, a MTF transsexual has a penis that has been surgically altered to look like a vagina, they do not have a vagina nor do they have female organs (uterus, ovaries, etc). A FTM transsexual still has a vagina that has been surgically altered to look like a penis, they do not have a penis nor do they have male sexual organs (prostate, testicles, etc). In both cases the natural sexual organs have been altered by surgery to appear different, but they are imitations of what is real as far as the opposite sex goes.
See above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.


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.

See above.

It is not inaccurate to focus on DNA. Sorry you are incapable of understanding that simple undeniable truth.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Right, and you are siting secondary characteristics that are dependent on genetic sex, that can simply be altered, to not conform with the biological sex

Right, it's cited the secondary characteristics that are dependent on and derived from genetic sex.

see the mention of "sex linked characteristics "

we use those to determine sex because they are normally an outward expression of the possible xx and xy genetic pairing that determines sex. If you had a frog that visually looked female, it would not be female *if* genetic testing ultimately determined it was male.

Hence, pointing to the normal outward expressions of genetic sex does not make an argument for those characteristics superseding genetic sex

No, because those "characters and qualities" and "the physical distinction between male and female" are based on observational data of normal genetic expression of genetic sex.

They do not supersede genetic sex, they are simply outward expressions of it
1. "Secondary characteristics", et al. are irrelevant to my argument as I have repeated. Again, you are attempting to direct the conversation towards a red herring. (By the way, genitalia are actually primary, not secondary sex characteristics, LOL - so you can't even get your red herring correct).

2. So you are ignoring the definition of sex provided by your own source, then. That tells me all that I need to know about you, LOL. Have a nice night.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.


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.


See above.

A doctor is a doctor, not a biologist. They can't simply redefine biological terms
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

1. "Secondary characteristics", et al. are irrelevant to my argument as I have repeated. Again, you are attempting to direct the conversation towards a red herring. (By the way, genitalia are actually primary, not secondary sex characteristics, LOL - so you can't even get your red herring correct).

2. So you are ignoring the definition of sex provided by your own source, then. That tells me all that I need to know about you, LOL. Have a nice night.

I'm using secondary in the sense that they are derived from genetic sex, not genetic sex is derived from them.

I work in taxonomy so I understand the technical definition quite well
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

Parents want grandchildren.

And gay children can give them grandchildren. Really? That's all you've got?

Every post on here is either anecdotal or unsubstantiated unless it links to an expert citation. What do you think an opinion is all about?

Anecdotal contributes very little to discussions, as does posting pure opinion without backing.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

I agree. When it comes to sex, it would be inaccurate to focus only on external genitalia just as it would be inaccurate to focus only on DNA. This is why I advocate acknowledging the totality of sex which includes genitalia, DNA and variety of other characteristics.
So, given the fact that their DNA is still identical to their birth sex and their genitals are not genuine do you still believe that a transgendered person has truly changed their sex?
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.


See above.

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.

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:
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

I a seeing a transgender specialist. If I decide to get hormones and pass I expect to be called she.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

You're welcome.



I think I was clear in saying that the research is pretty new... only from the last 15 years. We have no causal links to anything regarding sexuality, sexual orientation, or the like.

Well then, how can you be SO sure it isn't psychiatric?



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.

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.

No, and this is key. As I said above, there was no difference found in people on hormones verses people not on hormones.

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.


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.

:) 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.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

I a seeing a transgender specialist. If I decide to get hormones and pass I expect to be called she.

You can expect whatever you want, but what people feel like giving you is another matter entirely.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

ANYTHING would be immediate for the children... divorce, an illness, money problems, moving, etc... That does NOT equate to "devastating" or "destructive".

It would be pretty devastating for a child for daddy to turn into a woman suddenly. That is quite easy to see.

I never did.

Okay.


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.

For children, a lot of issues are black or white. I understand that everything is not.


Experts and those in the psychological community... who would know... say it is not. Your denial is irrelevant.

I have yet to see the evidence to support this sudden change in opinion. Seems like a PC decision to me.
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

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
 
Re: Transgender Navy SEAL 'Warrior Princess' Comes Out[W:181]

It would be pretty devastating for a child for daddy to turn into a woman suddenly. That is quite easy to see.

My Mate, Jimmy shoes, got pretty heavy into drugs afterwards. Ended up oding a few years later. But there were plenty of family issues prior to that. He pretty much lived with my family from age 13, basically because his mom just didn't care about him. I imagine she just looked at it as one less thing she had to deal with while trying to make her way to the bar
 
Back
Top Bottom