punkypink (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:16 pm Because as I have pointed out earlier, eunuch is both an identity AND an adjective. There IS such a thing as an eunuch man

Devi, I'd point out that being female and being a woman are 2 different things.

xsmasturbator (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:42 pm The eunuch , even if he have no shred of tissue of his reproductive system, is MALE. How he regards himself, as well as how others regard him, is irrelevant. Every cell in his body is MALE. His DNA has a Y chromosome. That's all it takes.

No matter what he may do to his body chemically or surgically, he cannot get rid of his Y chromosomes. He is irrevocably and irreversibly MALE. Similarly, Chastity Bono may call herself Chaz , take testosterone, have a prosthetic penis installed, ,or whatever she wishes, but, lacking a Y chromosome, she is and always will be FEMALE.

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:38 pm You are absolutely correct, from a chromosome point of view ONLY.

However, those of us who have been here a while and studied this know that its not your chromosomes or what is between your legs that make you male or female, its what is between your ears that counts.

devi (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:38 pm Fact is there are eunuchs which are identified as female from the time of birth, most as male, and so many of us as in between in a sort of separate all inclusive category, sort of a third gender construct which in this society other than India are told that they are male.

And yes biology has everything to do with male and female and why we're even living and breathing on this planet in the first place.

One thing that a eunuch can be said to be unique about is trying NOT to explain to a lady that they can have sex but cannot ever have children. The lady will always think or say something like, "Yeah RIGHT!!!". So when that kind of conversation starts coming about and they start becoming more and more inquisitive, it's just better to back off otherwise you'll see that snicker of "Yeah RIGHT".

Sure biology has everything to do with male and female.

xsmasturbator (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:13 pm Alright

I admit that I was considering the body only, not the personality. Those whom claim to be a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa have a valid point there. The writers of the Upanishads in ancient India knew that the person is not the body.

Those who deride as "the ghost in the machine" the idea that the person is an entity which uses the body (which is certainly the way that it SEEMS to us) have no plausible way of explaining why the body does things which are not only not useful or beneficial to it, but often harmful to it. If we weren't more than the body, EVERYTHING we do would be directed to the end of benefitting the body.

The question, then, is what defines gender ? Is it genetic, physiological, or psychological ?

punkypink (imported) wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:33 am I am a woman in a man's body. Certainly not trapped. Consider this: nature has diversity. If there are black and white women, tall and short women, fat and skinny women (all those adjectives are physical in nature you realise), why not male and female women?

So what defines gender? It is a psychological instinct that is a result of biological causes. Since 1998, they've proven and have continue to prove that most trans women, have a brain that is physically similiar to a brain found in a cisgendered physical female, despite the sex of the body being male. This seems to suggest that the gender instinct of the brain is dependent on whether the brain is more physically male-structured or female-structured, and independent from the sex of the rest of the body.