A pregnant man ?

[TrackerSam]

People should be able to marry and certainly divorce whoever they want.

That's a different thread. Start it if you wish. We're discussing the specifics of this story and the existing divorce laws of Arizona, not wishful hypotheticals.

 

[Nova]

Yet...you yourself will draw boundaries that are societal norms in the US and not other places.

Everyone conforms to definitions on some level, narrow or not.

I'm saying let the person most affected define him or herself.

And I'm asking what is the harm in doing so?

I suppose that's a "boundary" of sorts, but only in the loosest sense of the term.

 

[Nova]

This discussion is a bit of a mess because it seems that almost no post here recognizes that 'sex' and 'gender' refer to two different (albeit related) things. If you (not pointing at anyone in particular here) think that they mean the same thing, I would encourage you to read up on the differences before posting.

Now wait a minute. Be fair. Some of us have been very careful not to conflate the terms.

 

[Nova]

Your mental concept of who you are doesnt change biology. In this case this person is obviously a woman and will allways be one. She may choose to live like a man, and that is fine, but biology can't be changed by a couple of superficial cosmetic procedures or how people think of themselves. It is what it is.

Like the cat guy. He might have felt like a cat, wanted to be a cat, but no matter what he did he allways remained a human.

You are misinformed. You assume that "psychology" in this case is merely an idea, when in fact there is considerable evidence that psychological sex is determined by physiological differences in the brain and hormones.

I merely used the term to indicate the sex with which the person in question thinks s/he is most comfortable. That doesn't mean the thinking isn't triggered by biological processes.

***

But even IF a person merely "thinks" s/he is more comfortable as the opposite sex. Isn't that reason enough to follow a path that will align his/her social role with his/her subjective experience?

 

[Nova]

Psychology is not biology.

You can't choose to change what you were born biologically as, not your sex, not you race, not your species. Just because you feel like something else or identify with something else, it doesn't change what you are.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

And that's okay, but forming an opinion without any real evidence or understanding is generally a foolhardy exercise.

 

[Nova]

Psychology is not biology.

You can't choose to change what you were born biologically as, not your sex, not you race, not your species. Just because you feel like something else or identify with something else, it doesn't change what you are.

Psychology and biology are often closely intertwined, which is one reason we have fields like neurology.

 

[Nova]

You, my friend, form opinions on a lot of things you have no way of becoming an expert on. We all do.

If we didn't, WS would be pretty blank. Wouldn't it? Are we all supposed to be experts on every topic/thread before commenting?

But, I do know what I believe. Just as you do.

The thing about my opinions is they are mine. You don't have to agree with them.

Yes, but in this case, my opinion is let those affected make their own decisions.

That's quite different from forming an opinion and insisting it be binding on people I don't even know.

 

[Nova]

Those opinions were based on what the judge in Arizona has to decide, which is pertinent to the story - legal divorce.
Beyond that, men don't have ovaries. It follows that a person with ovaries, birth canal, etc. is not a man. There's already a definition of male.


male (māl)
1. the sex that produces spermatozoa
2. A man or boy.
Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.
n.
1. A member of the sex that begets young by fertilizing ova.


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/male

Before anyone goes off on sterile men, the spermatoza is there and either of insufficient number or deformed. Young boys don't produce but they will and are considered male. It seems like an incomplete definition but I didn't write it and evryone's free to look up their own.
Men don't give birth, I'm quite sure of that and some here think I'm confused? :what: :floorlaugh:

See #2 in your own definition. In most, if not all, states, individuals are recognized as "men", for legal purposes, after some amount of transition.

I honestly don't know what the law requires: complete surgical transition, partial, merely acting as the opposite sex for a certain period, or what. I suspect it varies by state.

Some women don't have ovaries, either because they were born without them or had to have them removed. We don't suddenly call them men.

The effort to prove sex based on the existence or absence of certain body parts will always be problematic. There are too many variances, even if we only include those at birth and ignore later accidents.

So why not let people define themselves? Why is that so scary?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Yes, but in this case, my opinion is let those affected make their own decisions.

That's quite different from forming an opinion and insisting it be binding on people I don't even know.

Please direct me to a post where I insisted my opinion be binding on people I don't even know.

Thanks!

 

[Charlie09]

I'm saying let the person most affected define him or herself.

And I'm asking what is the harm in doing so?

I suppose that's a "boundary" of sorts, but only in the loosest sense of the term.

It doesn't work that way - see the cat man as an example. He never became a cat, I suppose there is no harm in being delusional, as long as it doesn't impact others. In this case, it most certainly affects others though.

This woman is a woman whether she identifies as a man or not -
Biologically she's a woman.

 

[Nova]

Please direct me to a post where I insisted my opinion be binding on people I don't even know.

Thanks!

To wit:

MO opinion, born a woman, die a woman.

But that's JUST MY OPINION from what I BELIEVE to be factual and correct.

 

[Nova]

It doesn't work that way - see the cat man as an example. He never became a cat, I suppose there is no harm in being delusional, as long as it doesn't impact others. In this case, it most certainly affects others though.

This woman is a woman whether she identifies as a man or not -
Biologically she's a woman.

Could you be any more offensive? The comparison to the cat man is outrageous; I'm only thankful that the posters with transgendered children don't seem to have discovered this thread.

Implying that people who transition to the opposite sex are "delusional" is simply vile. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

To wit:

You are kidding right?

Giving my opinion that if you are born a woman you die a woman is insisting my opinion be binding on others?

Come on Nova. You are smarter than that!

 

[Charlie09]

Could you be any more offensive? The comparison to the cat man is outrageous; I'm only thankful that the posters with transgendered children don't seem to have discovered this thread.

Implying that people who transition to the opposite sex are "delusional" is simply vile. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I stand by my post no matter the twisting of my posts to suit the apparent need for outrage.

The Cat man is an extreme example of a person modifying his body.

It doesn't work that way - see the cat man as an example. He never became a cat, I suppose there is no harm in being delusional, as long as it doesn't impact others.

The word delusional was used specifically with the cat man, not the woman who removed her breasts and had a child.