punkypink, thank you for your explanation.

I think that SplitDikIt's sayings somewhat make sense. Most men or women tend to associate their primary sex characteristic, penis or vagina, with their gender identity.

Let's say a man who has accident that damaged his penis, and it has to be cut off. I'm quite sure most of the time the man will feel very embarassed or less of a man even though he may be more feminine than I am. I'm probably one of the exceptions among men who don't link their genitalia with their gender identity.

When you say

y

punkypink (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:09 am ou also need to understand why you don't identify as being female gendered. It has nothing to do with your personality,

it makes me think a lot. When I grew up, I always realized I has been more feminine than other men. Somehow I feel like there is a "force" inside me that controls my personality and makes me behave the way I do. I tried to be "man up" before, but it didn't work, only made me feel unnatural and more embarrassed. The same force drives me to make the decision of changing my genitalia. Maybe I'm a quarter on the scale of transsexuality. Maybe I'm in a completely different dimension.

mynhii85 (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:18 am punkypink, thank you for your explanation.

I think that SplitDikIt's sayings somewhat make sense. Most men or women tend to associate their primary sex characteristic, penis or vagina, with their gender identity.

Let's say a man who has accident that damaged his penis, and it has to be cut off. I'm quite sure most of the time the man will feel very embarassed or less of a man even though he may be more feminine than I am. I'm probably one of the exceptions among men who don't link their genitalia with their gender identity.

When you say , it makes me think a lot. When I grew up, I always realized I has been more feminine than other men. Somehow I feel like there is a "force" inside me that controls my personality and makes me behave the way I do. I tried to be "man up" before, but it didn't work, only made me feel unnatural and more embarrassed. The same force drives me to make the decision of changing my genitalia. Maybe I'm a quarter on the scale of transsexuality. Maybe I'm in a completely different dimension.

We are probably 2 of the rare people who don't link our genitalia with our gender identity. That does not mean the most who do are right. We need to examine how society developed the concept of the male and the female, in light of changing wisdom about the human condition.

We have to remember in the past, and by past I mean the palaeolithic and neolithic times, when humanity was first evolving society, and struggling for survival as a species, the physical sex would have been a far more important factor. Not to mention, early man would not have understood something as complex as sex and identity, both because there wasn't any prior knowledge base regarding the subject, and because until the advent of agriculture, fire and cooking, the sort of nutritional values available from hunting gathering and from eating unprocessed food, meant that mental capacities would have been enough to focus on the basic needs of survival and not much beyond that.

It is with this history that has led society to a current point where they still define gender with genitals. But, is this because it is still instinctive? Or is it because today most just accept this as "fact" because we are told? Truth of the matter is, the reason people place so much of their identity in their genitals is largely because of social conditioning. Being conditioned to believe in something. The fact is, we need to examine why society has the common beliefs they do today, and whether those beliefs are ingrained into our most basic instinct, or whether they are simply one that has been generated by our own history.

As a student of history and archaeology, I have to study the role of gender as a social construct in the past, from the earliest of mankind, to modern day societies, and having had to study gender as a social construct in past societies, only further serves to convince me that we don't truly and instinctively base our gender on our genitals. We as a society just think we do, because most people are sheep to varying degrees and will just believe what society tells them. Tt takes people either with unusual circumstances, or unusually perceptive intellectual capacity, to realise that we don't truly and instinctively base our gender on our genitals.

Splitdik's saying only makes sense if you are in a position of ignorance. Just as explaining the universe to early man, explaining the concept of of earth not being flat to someone whose view of the world does not extend beyond their immediate physically visible surrounding, will sound as illogical as what I have pointed out about gender identity and gender instinct. Conversely, if someone told early man "earth is flat" it would make sense to early man because something we know to be untrue today, would make sense to early man as it fitted his limited observation and knowledge of the true nature of the planet earth.

In any case, you mention you've tried to "man up" before. My question is, why should you? With MY way of defining identity, your identity would not be invalidated, and you would be free to be whoever you are inside, and have whatever you want outside, without judgement. If everyone could see as I do, being a man would not depend on "manning up" or on "having the right genitals". For the scientific of mind, it would solely depend on the basic psychological instinct, for the spiritual at heart, it would solely depend on the soul, but whichever way you define it, it is still based on something inside all of us, that is deep, meaningful, and a fundamental part of who we are.

Emily,

Why the new avitar? I thought you said the other one was you.

I understand that Kim Elizabeth Stuart's book, "The Uninvited Dilemma" is back in print as a print-on-demand book. As much as any other book I have read, her book describes what, to me, are many aspects of the diversity of gender roles, gender identity, gender preference and a goodly share of the rest of what constitutes the many dimensions of human gender and human sexual variation, diversity, and normalcy as a matter of independent assortment of many traits and characteristics.

It seems to me that the whole realm of gender, including sexuality as a proper subset, allows for far more unique gender identities than there are people.

I guess I am more interested in learning what life means than what words mean.

janekane (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:50 pm I understand that Kim Elizabeth Stuart's book, "The Uninvited Dilemma" is back in print as a print-on-demand book. As much as any other book I have read, her book describes what, to me, are many aspects of the diversity of gender roles, gender identity, gender preference and a goodly share of the rest of what constitutes the many dimensions of human gender and human sexual variation, diversity, and normalcy as a matter of independent assortment of many traits and characteristics.

It seems to me that the whole realm of gender, including sexuality as a proper subset, allows for far more unique gender identities than there are people.

I guess I am more interested in learning what life means than what words mean.

sounds like an interesting read. im not sure if her book argues for, against, or lies in neutral ground when contrasted with my arguments.

i will go and see if i can't find a copy of it.

Emily,

Mac (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:20 pm Why the new avitar? I thought you said the other one was you.

why? having second thoughts about me and the validity of my statements based on what i might actually look like?

punkypink (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:37 am why? having second thoughts about me and the validity of my statements based on what i might actually look like?

I find your avatar seemingly appropriate. A nice example of what a lot of us might look and feel behind the scenes.

Body dysmorphic or not, perhaps I don't have much in either sex but as for me when it comes to going out on the town or anywhere as a woman, I'd never want to be looking like a totally fugly ugly weird hag so I do everything I can to look as pretty as possible including making sure all my face hairs (which aren't many) are all plucked, my hair is brushed out, I look clean, smell nice, and have nice clothes on with some accessories, and a touch of make-up is good too.

However I once decided to dress up a medeival nun for a festival that was going on but when I was about to put on my face it suddenly occured to me: NUNS DON'T WEAR MAKE-UP!!!

punkypink (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:37 am why? having second thoughts about me and the validity of my statements based on what i might actually look like?

I know you like taking these adversarial positions, but you know they are false positions.

The one avatar shows a very happy, comfortable person successfully living as a female. The second avatar shows a very unhappy, uncomfortable person unsuccessfully living as a female.

It does make a difference, not because of the difference in beauty but because of the whole psychological situation. Knowing which of those best represents you (even if neither is you) does put context into your posts. For example, I was much more critical of you when you had the previous avatar because the person in that picture had nothing to complain about; if you are more like the second picture then you need all the help and support we can give.

You're always trying to take the "looks shouldn't matter" point of view. But looks do matter because they also impart cues about inner beauty, psychological issues, how society will likely respond to you, success, health, etc.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:05 pm You're always trying to take the "looks shouldn't matter" point of view. But looks do matter because they also impart cues about inner beauty, psychological issues, how society will likely respond to you, success, health, etc.

I agree with you that looks do matter. When you mention looks, are you referring to secondary sex characteristics? Do you think genital look matters as much as physical appearance?

I saw some masculine lesbians or very male looking women, but I'm not attracted to them. They don't need to tell me who they are nor do they speak their voice. I can tell immediately that I'm not physically attracted to them. I don't know why, but my guess is their confidence in their gender identity helps elevate their female gender. I have never seen a transman, but if I'm attracted to him, he's successful in being who he is.

I believe that someone out there will find me attractive. The question is whether they can accept the fact that I have a strange desire.