Crossdressers-Haven.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... &#45245069

This is a video clip interview with Thomas Beatty and his wife and kids (four of them I think there are now) and his vew of the complaints that if one changes sex, then they have to be sterilized to qualify for a change in legal gender.

Sooooo... What do you think?

Wow, all I can say is you learn something new everyday. I guess I still don't understand all the in's and out's of SRS .
I figured after the operation your sex reproductive organs were gone

Beatty is F2M and the only thing changed surgically was the breast removal. His internal female parts remained intact. He's currently thinking of getting a hysterectomy.

And I don't think the government should be requiring anyone be sterilized just to be recognized in their chosen gender.

The only reason I brought that comment of his up is that there is some controversy about a hysterectomy not being required. It is in some states, and it is in many countries other than our own. There is some activism on the part of younger people who feel that sterilization is not something that should be required. There seems to be some gender bias in this, with F2Ms more often being part of this attitude. Male HRT for the F2Ms does not render them sterile, and they could do as Beatty has done. M2Fs, on the other hand, are rendered sterile over a year or so by hormone replacement therapy, so it would seem to make no difference. Many of the negative comments from the counseling professionals stems from a perception that the people who do not want sterilization are not "real" TS as they lack conviction.

I have to admit that for me it is hard to understand why someone who is transitioning (especially M2F) would not want the evidence and the hormonal basis of their conflict to be removed.

Sadly, this activism has been used by those opposed to SRS as a therapy to support the misconception that Gender Dysphoria/GID is the same as body dysmorphia, which it is NOT.

I had lots of thoughts, beginning with outrage that I had to watch a commercial on my computer before getting to the interview......

I enjoyed the video and was struck by the differences seeing a video as opposed to reading interviews and news articles about the issue.. I was left with the feeling that here is a guy who, because of something having to do with his wife, wound up carrying the baby himself. Which leads to the thought of how many women would say they'd love it if it could be their husband who got pregnant, not them?

I certainly don't think that sterilization should be required for official gender change.

I have the impression that not having genital surgery is more common among FTM transexuals, mainly for reasons having to do with difficulties in the surgery itself. But I don't know, maybe having once had a womb there is more reluctance to part with it.

It's clear that he identifies as male and just happens to have a womb, the use of which he could be seen as having donated to his wife. However, I do think that there is a problem here with exactly how gender is defined. I think it is neccesary for the discussion to proceed without accusations and venom. For most of us, the terms male and female arose to differentiate those who, at least in theory, could be pregnant vs those who could impregnate someone. It's tempting to say that if you are pregnant, you are female, period. Maybe a very, very, mannish woman, but still female, because the word female means one who could be pregnant. And I think that there is a certain validity to that argument. But on the other hand, in every other way he is living his life as a male.

I think the problem comes down to language as much as anything else. Words have arisen to describe a certain concept. But over time the usage of the word can change. We see this with insults all the time. It would seem that with greater acceptance of gender variance and more medical options, that more words, and different definitions of words, are needed. The words transman and transwoman are examples-I think they are relatively new words. Our struggle to accept different terms-tranny is offensive to some and a good self description to others, is an example of this I think.

So in order to discuss this aspect, we need to first ask, what do the words male and female mean?

Anyway, back to Carolynns question. The idea of sterilization is a great example of people minding other people's business. What concern of your's is it if I get pregnant and call myself a man. (I'm being rhetorical, not addressing you Carolynn) If you are transexual and think in order to be sexually reassigned you need to get rid of certain body parts, do it, but don't tell me I have to do it. That's no differnet than the folks who say they should have the right to tell a woman she must remain pregnant.

Great topic, thanks for posting it.


Zari

Absaroka wrote:
So in order to discuss this aspect, we need to first ask, what do the words male and female mean?

Well, when I was a kid I used to make model airplanes and things (very boy activity) from plastic kits. You'd have like one half of the fusilage and you'd have to glue it to the other half. One side had little locating protruding semi-circles on the bit to be glued, the other had little indentations. You'd locate the protrusions in the indentations and glue the thing together. They were specifically called male and female sides in the instructions.

So I remember thinking, as a boy, is this what this is about, male and female?

Maybe. In the sense that I still basically think of female as "container" - and I mean in terms of gender role - that is what I think it is about. With men when they fulfil the male gender role - I think of it as "standing up", which I equate to functioning adequately potently under pressure. I think that's absolutely the key thing when it comes to "being a man". It's not hard to see that I'm basically deriving these from the physical roles of women and men in the creation and bearing of children and then transposing them to people adopting gender roles.

There are also other questions - like what happens when men act as containers (which is something I like to do), and when women act adequately potently under pressure?

But to come back to sex rather than gender. This thread is about what makes a man physically and what makes a woman physically. So, honestly, I struggle to see this guy as a man, being as how he started off physically as a woman and does this key, physically derived thing, that still says woman to me. Even though he says he's a man.

Hi Anthony. Actually the thread is more about gender than the physicality of birth sex. That is incontrovertable in most births, intersex excepted. The thread is about when should a person be considered socially and legally to have demonstrated a committment to being on the other side of the gender line, and whether that must or should include sterilization, and why or why not.

Carolynn

Hi Carolynn. I'm probably going to be guilty of doing the standard politician thing of not answering the question asked, but still..(and since I'm so lousy at playing politics...).

The thing about using sterilization as a basis is that it's essentially a negative thing and I kind of draw back at that. It's just that I feel it starts one off one the wrong foot. I mean there are quite a few MTF transsexuals (like there is one in the current British "My Transsexual Summer" TV series) who say they hate their male genitals. It does make me recoil when I hear that. Which is not to say that is not people's lived experience, but the level of bitterness I sometimes hear expressed seems to be dragging the whole thing into an area I'm really not happy about.

Frankly it frightens me. I mean granted that is people's experience, I am very wary of basing social/legal decisions on actions that contain such an extreme depth of negative emotion.

In a way I share your discontent with someone saying they "hate their genitals", and it is my experience that there are few TS who say that or feel that way. They do want them converted to a physical form they are more comfortable with, and a form that keeps them out of trouble when they use the ladies. Many feel a bit paranoid if they think someone is looking at them with suspicion while they are in the ladies, and that is one reason that most want their genitalia to match their gender. But they don't want them cut off, as that would be a waste of donor material.

The few I have heard state they hated their genitals usually were working extra hard to convince their therapists that they were TS and thought that was something they needed to say. It is sometimes though, a clue that they may be part of the few who are actually suffering from borderline personality disorder (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index is a useful test for that) and thinking transition is what they wanted to "fix" all their problems.

Transition and surgery doesn't do any more than help one problem of their lives, and if they were lying to get it, they are often the ones who are said to "regret" having their surgery and trying to go back. To try to identify those who are at risk for that is why therapy is needed.

Of course the other reason they want to transition is that they are eager to have wild lesbian sex orgies or hot semi gay sex orgies. No, not really. But that's what some uneducated mundanes think.

As I indicated, I have a hard time understanding the desire to keep the sex organs of the wrong sex. Keeping them functional means that the dosage of hrt has to be higher to do their job, and is thus more likely to cause other, potentially life threatening side effects, like deep vein thrombosis, high blood pressure, and stroke.

As far as compelling people to be sterilized, it does seem like a nasty invasion by society. I think to some degree compelling surgical sterization for legal status is a kind of punisment by the masculine, religious based society as a whole against any who want to kick over the traces against "Gods Laws". Other than that, it does seem to be a bit of a gender gap among the activists, though there are some M2Fs who are determined to be non-op and still be recognized as female, most are F2Ms.

F2Ms do have poor surgical results if they try to go for maximum surgery results, and that makes them not happy at all as you might expect. However, the standard in use in the US today for F2M surgery is a complete hysterectomy (which most are happy with as they are embarassed and do not like having periods or a vagina, actually a bathroom issue again), followed by clitoral release which allows as much as a 4 inch erect "phallus" when the tissue is engorged.

A bit of experimentation has been carried out that is similar to the kind of repair of a hypospadia that I had as a infant and child and that others have had routinely when born intersexed, where they try to move the ureatha to the end of the phallus. It usually requires a segment of a larger vein to be transplanted, obtained from the leg, to run from the bladder to the phallus to provide enough length to allow the surgery, and it is a major surgery. There is only about a 40% or less success rate, I am told, and very experimental and there are few takers when it is offered.

Otherwise there are a few prostheses that includes one that is a not very successful way to urinate while standing up (overflow issues and discomfort from a short catheter), and others that give a cosmetic illusion. All are made of a silicone materail that look pretty good, but only the one is sorta functional for urination. These are called "packers", and are successful at giving the impression of having something filling ones underwear and being apparent in the pants. There are also other items that have been tried to allow urination while standing, but they are not so successful when in public.

I found what I had useful while I had it and was working in the field, as it meant I didn't have to squat in the vegetation to urinate, risking poison ivy and ticks on the bum in summer, nor did I lose so much body heat by having to partially undress in the winter. Being able to stand to urinate was a plus then. When I had a mixed survey crew, I kept a toilet seat with a folding steel frame and a 10X10 tarp for the distaff side's convenience. I would set that up a bit from the work site, and move it as we moved. NO ONE minded carrying the extra weight!

Carolynn

I have a friend who used the female standing up to pee device when winter mountainering and found it helpful.

I also remember that when my daughters were very young when they were outdoors they always stood to pee. They would do this with no pants or underwear on, but they still felt no need to squat. Maybe anatomy changes by the teens?

Back to the original question of sterilization? Why do we in fact need to have laws defining what is a man and what is a woman? If we do away with that idea, then the whole question of sterilization becomes moot. But even if we don't go that far, although I myself might question whether or not I consider the pregnant man to in fact still be female, that's just my opinion, and there is no need for me to think that my opinion ought to be a law.

Zari

There have been times in my life that I wish I could get pregnant. Those times were when the female in the relationship couldn't and wanted a child.

My first wife kept telling me that she wished the charges had backfired till it came time for a divorce.

Leeza

Absaroka wrote: Back to the original question of sterilization? Why do we in fact need to have laws defining what is a man and what is a woman? If we do away with that idea, then the whole question of sterilization becomes moot. But even if we don't go that far, although I myself might question whether or not I consider the pregnant man to in fact still be female, that's just my opinion, and there is no need for me to think that my opinion ought to be a law.

Zari

Um, my guess is that there are seriously messed up people who need the definition so they can feel comfortable. They need clearly defined roles, with clearly defined legal definitions. That most of them are weird is not to be unexpected. They are characterized by the psychological problem known as Homochromosexuality, but since many are academician psychologists and "practicing" psychiatrists (when or when will they get it right), they refuse to have the probable disorder researched for inclusion in the DSM. For some reason, it is a charateristic that they always be right, even if they have to misrepresent their research to be so.

Carolynn

Absaroka wrote:I Why do we in fact need to have laws defining what is a man and what is a woman

What a question! My brain just goes completely to mush trying to think about it. So, I'm going to try the indirect method and see what happens...

If we take away the laws, then you lose the legal methods of differentiating men from women. In which case the whole legal basis for, amongst other things, heterosexual marriage, falls to the ground. Which is to say you get a lot of very pi$$ed off conservatives, amongst other things. Or to put it another way, you need the laws to continue to provide some degree of continuity with the past (conservative in that sense), amongst other things.

I think this may be why my brain turns to mush at this question. It just provides such a major discontinuity with the way I organise the world - I think because laws are the world-view of the society made concrete - that I don't think I could get my head around it.

In other words, I don't think I could cope with the idea that there aren't distinct beings called "women" and distinct beings called "men" - and taking away the legal distinction between the two seems to imply that's what you're doing. If you're not, you're heading that way.

We were given the ability to reason things out, and the ability to feel what we feel, so no one should need a law to tell them who is a man or who is a woman.

Hell, animals don't need laws to differentiate the sexes. Are humans dumber than animals in this regard?

DonnaT wrote:We were given the ability to reason things out, and the ability to feel what we feel, so no one should need a law to tell them who is a man or who is a woman.

Hell, animals don't need laws to differentiate the sexes. Are humans dumber than animals in this regard?

Well, if not dumber, more limited in their senses. An animal comes into season for mating periodically, and at that time secrete pheromones that signal their readiness for mating. Most human senses of smell is very poor compared to other critters, so we do not have that signal device available. Many female animals, particularly apes, exhibit reddened swellings of the sexual organs as they become more and more ready for conception, and that is a strong visual signal. The apes will respond to these cues of female mating readiness and have little doubt that their target is female. With their limited senses, modern men depend largely on visual and behaviorial cues to zero in on potential mates.

Humans, with our depleted senses, depends on culture to define relationships more than most other apes or other animals. We cover our anatomy with clothes that ideally are distict from male clothing, which act as a visual cue to the male that the being they are looking at is female. We redden our lips, hide our wrinkles, wear heels to emphasize our hips and sway when we walk, and wear scents on our skins to suggest preparations for mating, all to present as well as we can, whether female or crossdresser. We wear bras to lift and separate sagging boobs, deceiving men into thinking we might be younger. We even submit to often painful surgeries to mask evidence of aging, and will have breast augmentation to make us look better (as in more appealing) in our clothes. OK, some cultures still prefer mostly nuditiy, especially those in tropical climes and if their culture is not defiled by prosletyzing christians, so for them the secondary sexual characteristics are on display and incontrovertable. Really doesn't mean that the female they see will be able to actually conceive, but they are pretty darn sure they are female so the potential for genetic immortality is there.

With all that cultural inspired subterfuge, a poor male wanting to maximumize his chances of directing his sperm into a vessel (Anthony! ) that will have a good chance of having his child, thus providing his chance at genetic immortality, sometimes needs help in finding a prospective mate. I mean, look at the extent that a randy young male will go to in order to find a potential mate (and a woman will do the same) by entering into "dating services" publically stating they can't get a woman interested in them in the conventional way. How desperate is that?

However, because we who are born male but use the visual cues of clothing, and the odiferous cues of scent, makeup, and other subterfuges, we can seem appealing (some of us anyway) to men and they might find themselves wasting their time courting an apparentl female that will be a waste of their efforts, which can be strenuous and expensive, to set up culturally approved situations for spreading their sperm to insure their genetic immortality. Is it any wonder that some deceived males want to assult their deceivers?

So yes, men are so dumb they need some legal/religious/cultural assurance they aren't wasting their time with a stalking horse apparition that seems to be female.

Carolynn