Male & Female both opposites

[I Worship Women (imported)]

I don't see the comparison. And actually a little hurt you would compare me to a dog. Dogs don't talk. They can't tell you how they're feeling with words, or give us insight into their deepest desires, feelings and dreams. And with that in mind, will we ever truely identify a dog with a gender identity disorder? But above all, the dog was not done voulentarily.

I hope by reading the words in this post, I am at least able to convince you I possess abilities that transcend a dogs.

Sorry I'm doing this in multiple posts. I don't know how else to quote the part I'm answering in each post any other way, and I wanted to answer several of these issues.

I didn't mean to compare you or anyone else to a dog. My point is this. When we have a male dog or other male animal that has been castrated or neutered, we still think of and refer to him in male terms. Why would that be any different for a man who has been castrated?

Maybe a better comparison would be a man who has been castrated for medical reasons, prostate cancer or testicle cancer. He is a eunuch and is as castrated as a eunuch who was castrated by choice. We still think of the man who was castrated for medical reasons in male terms the way we did before his castration, and he continues to live as a man as a male. So why would it be any different with a man who was castrated by choice and lives the rest of his life as a eunuch?

[I Worship Women (imported)]

Could it then follow, that someone like me has always had a eunuch identity in the mind, but been trapped in the body of a male? And that by ridding myself of my parts, I have escaped the effects of testosterone, much of the bodyhair, balding, and male feelings/urges too?

That's an interesting question.

I sometimes have a problem putting what I want to say into words and saying it so others can understand me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it depends on what you down inside yourself felt yourself to be before you were castrated. What did you down inside yourself feel and consider yourself to be before you were castrated? Then whatever that is, that is your answer. I don't know, but that is just what seems to make sense to me.

I think another factor in how I view this compared to others is that we are here in the physical and tend to view things in the physical. I tend to look at things including castration, much more in the spiritual.

In my personal spirituality I follow a female Goddess based spirituality. I have femdom castration fantasies about surgical castration performed by a woman or by women, and my femdom castration fantasies are somehow connected to my female Goddess based spirituality.

[Slammr (imported)]

From what I've read on the boards here, I think we have three different kinds of eunuchs. There are transsexuals, women trapped in the bodies of men, who have chosen to remove their male parts, because having them doesn't match their internal picture of themselves.

Then, there are men that -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- have lost their balls. That doesn't mean that they're no longer men, no more that it would had they lost an arm or a leg. They're just men without balls.

There seems to be a third category, Eunuchs, people born male, not desiring to be female, but not wanting to be male either, a third sex, if you will.

Therefore, I think it's legitimate for transsexuals to call themselves female, Castrated men to call themselves men, and Eunuchs, those uncomfortable with being male, to call themselves eunuchs or something else that denotes neither male or female. What one has between his, her, ?, legs is less important than the picture that person has of himself in his mind. (I use the universal himself/his because I don't like the politically correct usage of alternatives.)

[I Worship Women (imported)]

From what I've read on the boards here, I think we have three different kinds of eunuchs. There are transsexuals, women trapped in the bodies of men, who have chosen to remove their male parts, because having them doesn't match their internal picture of themselves.

Then, there are men that -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- have lost their balls. That doesn't mean that they're no longer men, no more that it would had they lost an arm or a leg. They're just men without balls.

There seems to be a third category, Eunuchs, people born male, not desiring to be female, but not wanting to be male either, a third sex, if you will.

Therefore, I think it's legitimate for transsexuals to call themselves female, Castrated men to call themselves men, and Eunuchs, those uncomfortable with being male, to call themselves eunuchs or something else that denotes neither male or female. What one has between his, her, ?, legs is less important than the picture that person has of himself in his mind. (I use the universal himself/his because I don't like the politically correct usage of alternatives.)

I like this answer. I'm very comfortable with that and with whatever it is people truly consider themselves to be.

[kristoff]

[

The same could be said of post-op transsexuals? Wouldn't this be overlooking the motive for why they were removed? For both eunuchs and transsexuals. Are

not eunuchs, a type of transsexual?

I don't

think of a eunuch as being a type of transexual. A transexual is a person of one sex trapped in the body of the opposite sex, usually a woman (female) trapped in a male body. I agree that physically a male to female transexual might spend some time physically as a eunuch depending on how her surgeon does the male to female surgery. But with a transexual you have to look beyond the physical to their inner psyche, their very being, what they truly feel themselves to be down inside.

A eunuch is a male who is male and has had his testicles removed and has lost his source of male hormones. Maybe a good way to put it is, a transexual is a woman trapped in a man's body but she is really in her very being a woman and female. A eunuch is a man who is and considers himself to be male but has been castrated and lost his source of male hormones, but has no intention of going on for SRS surgery of any kind. It depends on how and what you fel

t inside yourself that you were before being castrated.

You have some very narrow points of view that do not permit people to be anything other than what define them in very rigid categories. It does not provide for a broader view. I think you miss the whole point above.

[EricaAnn (imported)]

Being transgendered and transsexual I find the whole subject very interesting and because of what I am, I have spent a great deal of time dealing with my gender and the whole issue of male verses female gender identity.

There have been some very interesting concepts and ideas expressed in this thread and I would like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts from someone who crosses over the lines of the traditional concepts of gender.

Could it then follow, that someone like me has always had a eunuch identity in the mind, but been trapped in the body of a male? And that by ridding myself of my parts, I have escaped the effects of testosterone, much of the bodyhair, balding, and male feelings/urges too?

Rog, this in my mind would suggest a third sex that is neither male of female. I don't feel that a eunuch is a third sex category. By all definitions a eunuch is a castrated male and I feel that a eunuch is still a male. Gender is far more complicated than what's between your legs. Why each of us sought castration is depended on one's own wishes and desires and I'm sure that there are as many reasons as there are eunuchs. I my case it's pretty obvious my I proceeded.

I don't th

ink of a eunuch as being a type of transsexual. A transsexual is a person of one sex trapped in the body of the opposite sex, usually a woman (female) trapped in a male body. I agree that physically a male to female transsexual might spend some time physically as a eunuch depending on how her surgeon does the male to female surgery. But with a transsexual you have to look beyo

nd the physical to their inner psyche, their very bei

ng, what they truly feel themselves to be down inside.

I'll agree with this statement. A transsexual is one who has the need and or desire to align one's inner self with one's physical appearance and attributes, whether it is expressed in a MTF or FTM situation. I truly feel that I am a female, in my mind, my mindset, my thinking and in my heart and soul. The ONLY thing that is male about me is my physical appearance and even that is changing through castration and HRT.

I guess my sense is that it doesn't matter if someone is heterosexual or homosexual, a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman.

A man is a man and he is male, it doesn't matter if he is heterosexual or homosexual, it's just that a homosexual man is sexually attracted to other men instead of being sexually attracted to women. But heterosexual or homosexual they are both men and they are both male.

Sexual identity and gender are two distinct and different concepts. I very much consider myself a woman and by the fact that I prefer women sexually, by most definitions that would make me a lesbian or a homosexual. That "tag" or "label" does not offed me in the slightest. There are many transsexual MTF's that prefer men. I consider them to be heterosexual even though they are still physically a male.

[Hash (imported)]

thefraq,

While looking at the Klinfelter's website that you posted, I went over to Wikipedia and they mentioned that "penis cardiovasular exercise" was a treatment that was suggested. I couldn't find any additional info on this exercise. Have you ever heard of it?

[EricaAnn (imported)]

Instead of ranting, raving or crying. I am going to act as a mirror, to give you an idea of how it feels to listen to those words. These are not flames, but a carefully reworked (and overgeneralized) statement made to reflect the original. I hope you will look long and hard into this mirror Erica and see why it is so terrible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaAnn

I don't feel that a eunuch is a third sex category. By all definitions a eunuch is a castrated male and I feel that a eunuch is still a male.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFraj

I don't feel that a male-to-female transsexual is female. By all definitions a (MtF) transsexual is a castrated male who feels the need to play make-believe and dress up, but who is still male.



Dear thefraj,

I meant no offense by my statement and I sincerely apologize if any was taken. That was never my intent. I may have not worded it as well as I should have.

What I meant is that in my thinking a eunuch still, at least physically, resembles a male, i.e.; facial hair, the remaining genitals, more body hair than a female, etc. and therefore shares more physically characteristics with a male than a female. The way one views themselves from within is an entirely different matter.

I do agree with you in that as a eunuch myself, I no longer consider myself a male even physically. At the least, I look at myself as a eunuch...at best...as a developing female. And, if I'm interrupting your post correctly...we share the same thoughts on our view of not considering ourselves as "true males".

What did bother me a bit was your statement regarding transsexuals. As a transsexual MTF I do consider myself female in ever way except in my physical appearance...and I'm the process of changing even that. When I dress, it is not though the need to play make-believe or role playing. I am dressing in what I feel is gender appropriate clothing...or in other terms...just being me...Erica Ann...the person I've always been and always will be.

Rog, it's those kind of statements that really bring to light how much is not know about transsexuals and the whole GID issue. It's this kind of thinking that we who are GID have to endure on an almost daily bases. I know from first hand experience! :-\

May I pose a question? After a transsexual has the SRS, would you now view that person as female? Just curious.

[I Worship Women (imported)]

Maybe a good way to put this is that you are what you feel, you are what you think and perceive yourself to be.

Down inside your very self and being, whatever you feel yourself to be and are comfortable being, that is what you are, and the rest of us should respect that and we should respect you as that.

I think one problem is that most of society isn't often very accepting of those who society considers, for want of a better term, "different" or "too different". So a lot of times people who are "different" don't express or openly express themselves as they really are. Instead they express an image of themselves they hope society will accept and keep their true self hidden. That's too bad because only showing this "false image" of yourself and keeping your true self hidden like that is not psychologically healthy and can cause depression and other emotional problems, and society misses getting to know thewonderful real you as you really are.

It would be wonderful if society could say, "Ok, this is you, this is who and what you really are and it's ok, we love and accept you as the person you really are."

[JesusA (imported)]

I apologize for not jumping into this thread at an earlier point, but I wanted to see what direction it eventually took.

Tugon and Thefraj have opened up a very important topic (and an extremely difficult one for most people to understand). I will try to keep my response simple and will use only a single footnote. If anyone is interested, I can write in full-blown academic such that it can be read with understanding by few and I can include a blizzard of footnotes to the scholarly literature.

The basic point that needs to be made is that humans think in the language that they learned as children. Some very few manage to think in a language that they learn at at older age, but it is quite rare. Rarer still is the ability to break out of language categories entirely. I can still, only with great difficulty, manage to think through an argument in Japanese, even though I have lived in Japan for many years, read and write the language, have taught Japanese at the university level in the United States and have taught IN Japanese at Japanese universities. I still find myself translating back and forth with English whenever any thought process becomes too complex.

Language creates “pigeon-holes” for concepts (“words”). A word lumps together a category of things that are somewhat similar so that they can be dealt with more easily. If we explore the boundaries of many words, we will quickly discover that the edges are very fuzzy and whether or not things near the boundary belong in or out of the category can be easily debated.

These pigeon-holes are manipulated by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules that also involve arbitrarily dividing experience. For example, English grammar requires that we think of all actions as taking place in time – past, present, future – and indicate the probability of occurrence only with an adverb when it’s important. Some languages force PROBABILITY in all statements, and include time only as an adverb when it’s absolutely necessary to indicate when something happens. (Modern physics struggles to force a probability-based view of reality into English grammar.)

Our sex and gender categories in English are simple pigeon-holes for categorizing individuals. “Male” vs. “Female”. “Man” vs. “Woman”. “Boy” vs. “Girl”. We grow up with these categories and tend to think that they are somehow “real”, rather than artificial constructs. Everyone needs to be put into one of the two pigeon-holes whether they fit or not.

There is no reason to think that the two categories are absolute. Some languages categorize sex and gender quite differently. Navajo, for example, lumps humans into SEVEN different categories of sex and gender, compared to our two. Everyone has to be put into one of the seven.

Across the natural world, there are far more than two possible sex/gender types in the animal kingdom. Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, has written an excellent book at the educated layman level that addresses some of these issues. (Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, University of California Press, 2004) The book has been well-received in the academic community. It’s written at a level when any high school graduate ought to be able to read it with understanding. The language and arguments are clear, though the hundreds of footnotes are in place.

Roughgarden discusses animal species that have multiple genders. She gives ample evidence of the reproductive advantages that multiple genders can provide to the survival of a species. The final section of her book discusses the multiple genders of humans.

While we casually categorize humans as “male” or “female”, and that pronouncement, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” in the moments after birth determine much of what happens to an individual over the lifespan, we know that human sex/gender is vastly more complex. As Thefraj notes, about one in a thousand births is of a baby who cannot be easily lumped into "male" or "female" at birth. It used to be seen as a medical emergency. Today the National Association for the Intersexed is working to make it just another way of being human. At the level beyond simple external plumbing (that that's seen at birth), there are a vast number of different dimensions to sex and gender. Chromosomes need not just be XX or XY. X0, XXY, XYY, etc. are possible.

There are enough different dimensions of sex/gender that, even if each dimension had only two points (rather than being scalar), there are more possible variations than humans who have ever lived. There is no reason to believe that any two humans have ever had the identical sex/gender combination.

We can lump humans as only two categories, “male” and “female”, but the reality is vastly more complex.