Fairness and the Transgendered Miss Universe Contestant

Changing mores, technology, laws and science create the damnedest ethical problems.

Jenna: too masculine for Miss Universe?

The Miss Universe Canada organizers have kicked contestant Jenna Talackova out of their beauty pageant because she was born male.  Fair? Well, the qualifications for the pageant require that an entrant be a “naturally born female.” I’m sure that was seen as a clear and reasonable restriction when it was devised, but let a few lawyers at it today. Jenna says she was always female, but just trapped in a male body. She was also “naturally born.” Hmmmm.

[UPDATE: (4/10/12) On April 5, the pageant announced that Talackova would be allowed to compete after all, and announced a rules change that will allow transgendered competitors next year.]

Jenna falsely stated on her entrant forms that she was “born female.” Since she has told officials that this wasn’t true, she is obviously no lawyer, but really: why shouldn’t a transexual be able to compete? The issue should be whether she’s a female now, right? The pageant might as well require that all contestants must be born gorgeous. Miss Universe Canada could, I suppose, duck the problem by requiring that no entrant can have appearance-enhancing surgery. Of course, then the pageant would have no contestants at all.

Jenna lied on her form, and that’s certainly enough to justify disqualifying her. But for the future, I’d suggest that the pageant enter the 21st Century. Transexuals are regarded as being members of their their new genders by the law, and should have all attendant rights, including the opportunity to enter a beauty contest. Nothing says a transgendered entrant has to win, but if one did—and Jenna certainly appears to have had a shot—it would be a rare example of the Miss Universe Pageant having positive social impact, for a change.

Maybe next year, Jenna.

128 thoughts on “Fairness and the Transgendered Miss Universe Contestant

    • One simple blood test?

      “A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.” — J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

      Please do some research on the subject. I know many people share your misconceptions, it’s a huge problem for Intersex and Trans people trying to correct the misinformation so many believe,

      • It’s called a “Y chromosome”. If one is a male, it’s to be found in every living cell of the body. If it’s only X chromosomes, the person is female. Testing blood cells is the simplest way. No “misconception”. Just bottom line.

        • You did read the post you replied to – where both a mother and the daughter she gave birth to have Y chromosomes, didn’t you?

          1 in 300 men are not 46,XY. Some women are. Some men don’t have Y chromosomes. Some women do.

          For that matter, if you had a bone marrow transplant from a 46,XX donor, your body would gradually become 46,XX too – sensecent cells are replaced by stem cells from the bone marrow. Do you think that would change your sex?

          See http://www.intersexualite.org/Homochromosexuality.html

            • Ask a biologist. Of course you can, biologically speaking – as with De La Chapelle syndrome.

              The SF1 gene usually on the 9 chromosome (at 9q33), DHH usually on the 12 chromosome (at 12q12-12q13.1) and SrY usually on the Y chromosome (Yp11) are all involved.

              The SrY gene, if transocated elsewhere, can cause masculinity, even absent a Y chromosome, for example.

              I’ve already shown you a pucture of a 46XX male, his body masculinised in the womb by a common form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

              Please do some reading on the subject. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

              Without a karyotype. you can’t even be sure that you have a Y chromosome, though the odds are strongly in favour of that.

              • They certainly are “strongly in favor of that”! What you’re referring to here are mutations. Those, I may point out, are exceedingly rare and, to a high degree, lead to an unviable fetus. To excuse homosexuality on this basis would require a mutation rate comparible to Chernobyl right after the accident.

                • *Sigh*
                  To repeat, since the message didn’t get through the first time:
                  Transsexuality has as much to do with sexual orientation as it does to do with handedness.

                  There are lesbian trans women, and straight ones, just as there are right-handed trans women and left-handed ones.

                  There are rather more lesbian trans women than lesbians in the general population, just as there are a lot more trans women and men who are ambidextrous, and rather more left-handed, than in the general population.

                  This has everything to do with anomalous neural development in the womb, and nothing to do with distant fathers, lunar eclipses, or any other unevidenced conjectured causes.

    • A common misconception.

      “A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.” — J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

      It’s more complex than you think – 1 in 300 men don’t have XY chromosomes, and many women do.

        • They’re called “facts”. Whether you think they should exist or not, they do.
          I’ve given you the references, the evidence. All you’ve done is given unsupported assertions mixed with a salting of insult and invective.

          …don’t think you can get away with an unsupported or purely emotional argument and not get called on it

          I’m calling you on it.

          i won’t call you an idiot. If you’re not one, that would reflect badly on me as someone who has to resort to insult rather than evidence.

          If you are one, then that will be made obvious by you making comments consisting of unsupported conjectures and unevidenced assertions, with or without insults mixed in. So it would be pointless, as well as rude.

          • What you are doing is quoting those who, through a flurry of impressive sounding “facts”, are actually doing nothing but trying to stand the basis of biological science on its ear in pursuit of a political agenda. This is what happens when you mix science with politics. Science becomes a dog and pony show.

            • Why not listen to actual professors of biology, instead of talking about “the basis of biological science”.

              This is contrary to what you were taught at grade school. sure. You were given the simplified version. Like being taught that the Earth is spherical, rather than an oblate spheroid.

              Why not go read some intermediate or advanced biology textbooks on the subject, rather than pooh-poohing the evidence. This stuff isn’t controversial, nor some big secret.

              A good basic primer is at http://cdolops.las.iastate.edu/ws325/_readings/HowDimorphic.pdf

              How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis
              Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown
              University, Providence, Rhode Island

              In AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 12:151–166 (2000)

              Or you could look at this presentation by Professor of Biology, Veronica Drantz, designed for a lay audience like yourself rather than experts.


              • Zoey there was “Scientific fact” that “proves” that black people are inferior to whites. There was scientific fact that proved that “black men” are more prone to violence then White men b/c of “their brain waves”. In criminal cases you can get in scientist to get on the stand and “prove” what they want to prove. Science can prove anything, depending on the political climate and the money. That’s a fact. Hey, I’m not saying that you really don’t believe that you’re a woman. I believe that you truly believe this and think this. It does’nt make it right though. Pedophiles, in their heads, are attracted to children. Certain parts of their brain functions differently. We don’t make exceptions for these people b/c they harm society. Saying that it’s o.k for a man to be a woman will harm society. Men and women are needed to procreat. That’s a fact. You’re sperm is special b/c I need it to have children. Of course your brain wave is different, b/c a normal man would’nt feel that way. Its not normal, it’s wrong. You said in another post that “trans” don’t share thier medical history. Why? Men who sleep with Men have anul sex and that in itself makes them prone to spread of HIV and aids, even if you had a sex change you should disclose that you are a man and have had sex with men. And you should disclose your’re sexual preference to other straight men, b/c I heard of alot of “trans” getting seriously hurt when they don’t and tell the man later.

                • Hey, I’m not saying that you really don’t believe that you’re a woman. I believe that you truly believe this and think this.

                  It could have a neurological component, just as anorexia may have a neurological component.

                  Of course, we do not encourage anorexics to starve themselves to death, even if it is neurologically hardwired.

                • I heard of alot of “trans” getting seriously hurt when they don’t and tell the man later.

                  You “heard” right? Never did that yourself?

                  It’s true, for what that’s worth. More get “seriously hurt” if they do disclose first though. Even if they have no intention of going to bed with their killer.

                  Men who sleep with Men have anul sex and that in itself makes them prone to spread of HIV and aids,

                  The problem there is the unprotected anal sex, the drug use, and other “risky behaviours” that unmarried men engage in. Married men too, some of them.

                  A woman who has a vagina may engage in anal sex – I believe many do – but often do not. Even if the vagina has been surgically constructed, due to a radical hysterectomy or being born looking male (or both, in my case).

                  If a woman has engaged in “risky behaviour” – including having sex with men who engage in risky behaviour – then not only should she reveal that, but also have regular checks at an STD clinic for at least a year afterwards. What she need not do is reveal that she’s 1/256 black, or “doesn’t look Jewish”, or is 1/32nd Polish on her mother’s side, or has had her appendix removed, or was born looking male.

                  Similarly, people like yourself should warn any prospective partner of any homicidal tendencies, just in case they might be Trans .

              • Hey, I’m not saying that you really don’t believe that you’re a woman. I believe that you truly believe this and think this.

                That’s mighty White of you.

                For what it’s worth, the diagnosis in 1985, based on tests available at the time, was “undervirilised male syndrome”. A reasonable diagnosis under the circumstances, I looked mostly male, and the pathology reports after my hysterectomy weren’t available, only X-rays that were inconclusive.

                The diagnosis in 2005, after genetic testing, androgen tests, pelvic ultrasounds, MRI scans, tests not available in 1985, was “severely androgenised non-pregnant woman”. By then, I looked rather more female than I’d looked male in 1985.

                I’m not saying that you really don’t believe that I’m a man. I believe that you truly believe this and think this. That doesn’t make it right though.

                Go argue with my Ob/Gyn.

  1. So we should simply pretend that transgendered people are of another sex, when in fact they are not. I know our society has a history of abusing the mentally ill, but playing along with mental illness is hardly productive.

    Would we, as a society, recognize anorexics and bulimics as obese, simply because they feel obese?

      • Gender issues like this are not treated as “mental illness” by the medical community, but rather a physical disability that can be cured with treatment and surgery.

        It is only a physical disability if it is hermaphroditism or intersexualism or some other deformity of the sexual organs. Nothing in the article indicates any of those were involved in this particular case. If there is no physical deformity, it is a mental disorder just like anorexia.

        • Please see Dr M.Diamond’s presentation to the 2009 APA Annual conference : “Transsexuality as an Intersex condition”.

          We know that in some respects, a Trans woman is born anatomically female. Not genitally, but neurologically. To over-simplify, trans women have female brains – which appears to be why they have a female gender identity. We’ve known this since the mid-90’s.

          Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
          For example.
          A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

          “Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones”

          • Thank you. I was aware of some of this, but lacked the time to research it properly, and (uncharacteristically) was wise enough to wait for a reader to bring appropriate expertise to the issue. Ethics Alarms is grateful, and welcome.

            • If I may, and at the risk of “Blinding with Science” thereby clouding rather than clarifying a very complex subject, I’ll quote the abstract of “Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation” Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

              “The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.”

              This is perhaps most obvious in the perplexing Intersex variations such as 5-alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5ARD), and 17-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17BHSD) which can cause an apparent “Natural Sex Change” at puberty, from female to male. Depending on the neuro-anatomy, this may cure existing Transsexuality, be just an interesting life experience for those whose brains are not strongly sexed, or be a complete nightmare.

              See Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency. Cohen-Kettenis PT. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Aug;34(4):399-410.

              Other Intersex variations, such as the 3BHSD form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, can cause an MtoF change. These are rarer though, so unlike 5ARD and 17BHSD, not well understood.

              Unfortunately, this whole area has become something of an Ideological and Political battleground, and just teaching that such things happen meets stiff opposition.

              • Which is why this is so valuable, and why your willingness to take the time to wade into the topic—and be subjected to ideological cross-fire, is much appreciated.

                Few topics are such perfect examples of what I call the “Ick Factor”, where things that seem strange are reacted to as if they must be unethical, immoral, or wrong.

          • We know that in some respects, a Trans woman is born anatomically female. Not genitally, but neurologically. To over-simplify, trans women have female brains – which appears to be why they have a female gender identity. We’ve known this since the mid-90′s.

            So it is a neurological problem, similar to some mental disorders like bipolar disorders.

            Strange that the surgery is performed on fully-functioning genitals instead of the malfunctioning brain.

            • Not a neurological problem so much as a mismatch of neurology and other physiology. The brain is perfectly normal and body is perfectly normal, they just don’t go together.

              • If the brain is “perfectly norma” and the “body is “perfectly normal” then why change the body. Why chop off the penis or “reconstruct” it to look like a vagina. Why not accept it for what it is. That’s called self hate, when soemthing on your body is fully function and you don’t like it, so you change it.

                • To simplify – there’s a mismatch between neuro-anatomy and the rest of the body.
                  For Transsexuality to occur, the lumbic nucleus must be cross-sexed. Usually other parts are as well.

                  If the lymbic nucleus is not cross-sexed, even though other parts are, the person is not transsexual. They do not develop a cross-sexed gender identity.

                  The Superior Parietal Lobule (SPL) if cross-sexed, will lead to intense distress as the body-map does not match the body.

                  While if the lymbic nucleus is cross-sexed, usually the SPL is too, (and vice-versa), they are independant. Consequently some Transsexuals neither want nor require body modification. Others do.

                  It’s also not a binary, there are degrees. Very often a Trans person can get by with only body modifications from hormones, as the SPL is only moderately cross-sexed. It’s only in more severe cases that surgery becomes necessary, though it can be just very desirable for quality-of-life rather than actually life-saving.

                  Hope that explains things. It’s no more “mental” than being left-handed or ambidextrous – also a consequence of atypical neurological development, and indeed, often found in Trans people.

                  See for example:

                  Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality Govier et al International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

            • Hey,
              They will argue you down, to make what they are saying right. They want us to believe that a man is a woman at the cost of ALL reality of the situation. They try to argue that their brain the the womb has been wired to be a female, yet their phypsical part was born a male. But when we say it’s “mental” they say NOO it’s perfectly normal then we say o.k, so “you were born with the wrong sexual organ” they say noo their is nithing physically wrong with us physically either. So if there is nothing wrong physically then why change the physical dynamics of the body to match the womans body. When you argue a woman can repode they say “not all women can have children or are born with a uterus”. However, men are internally and physically different than a woman. Now, are they going to ask to start competing in the olympics with women too. Where men are physically stronger then women, that would put women at an unfair advantage to these men. This is wrong on so many levels.

              • Trans people have been competing in the olympics for some time.

                The rules are that after two years of hormonal treatment, after surgery, there is no measureable advantage. That’s the IOC’s view, anyway.

            • So opposite-sex identical twins – both from a single fertilised egg – cannot exist?

              What about chimerae – where two fertilded eggs fuse?

              At the moment pf conception, we can’t even tell if 1/2, 1, or 2 people will result, let alone what sex they mau be.

              Usually. a 46XY fertilised egg results in a single 46XY person, usually male. Usually. Not always.

              Other results are possible., including XX, XXY. X0, which in turn will heavily influence the odds of sex development later.

      • And that’s where they’ve gone horribly wrong… as with the climatologist “community”. Both have surrendered via their leadership to political correctness in order to stay in the good graces of those who have so much say over their funding. All you do with surgery is create external facsimilies of men and women… who aren’t. Their very chromasomes- in every cell of their bodies- deny them. “Sex change” operations only re-enforce the mental illness that drove them to deny all self-evident reality as to their sexual identity. It’s a Frankensteinian procedure that is a indictment of American medicine and should be abolished.

        • And that’s where they’ve gone horribly wrong… as with the climatologist “community”.

          There are people who were born hermaphradotic or intersexed and that is a true physical disability.

          “Sex change” operations only re-enforce the mental illness that drove them to deny all self-evident reality as to their sexual identity. It’s a Frankensteinian procedure that is a indictment of American medicine and should be abolished.

          Even more so than conversion therapy for homosexuals.

          • I noted your previous comments about people born with sexual birth defects. On that score, of course, I’m in complete agreement. That’s along the lines of removing a vestigal tail or separating connected twins. By “conversion therapy”, are you referencing psychiatry?

              • I’ll have to disagree with you on that score, then. The only way to treat a mental illness is with counseling. Surgical disfigurement only perpetuates the delusion at the heart of the matter. Of course, in the case of perversion, the delusion is a massive one which is further induced by a culture of permissiveness. But people have been brought back from it. The older they are, though, and the deeper they’ve sunk into it, the harder it becomes. But surgery is the worst therapy possible. Moreover, I consider it the height of medical malpractice.

                • The problem is it’s not a mental illness – it’s caused by an anatomical issue. “Talking Cures” have been tried for decades. They don’t work.

                  A Triadic therapy – counselling, hormones, surgery – has a measured 98% cure rate. Hence despite the enormous pressure by Ideologically opposed groups to prevent surgery, there really isn’t any other ethical alternative.

                  From the WPATH “Standards of Care” version 7:
                  “Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.

                  • When you started talking about “genetics” and “gender identity”, you gave yourself away, Zoe. You’ve gone to great lengths to try and portray perversion as some inevitable condition. So have others, such as the ones you’ve quoted. But you’ve delved so deeply into this- with the pre-conceived goal of justifiying the most horrendous form of behavior known to Man- that you’ve lost sight of the basics. And, because you have no moral foundation (beyond political correctness), you can’t comprehend how deeply into the intellectual morass you’ve sunk.

                    Here’s the gist, Zoe. Not only life, but gender are determined at the moment of conception. The latter is determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromasome. Occasional mistakes of nature do occur, but they rarely result in a viable fetus to begin with. That “sexual identity” that transsexists like to harp on is imbedded within every cell of the body. However, childhood traumas or misparenting can alter natural inclinations and bring about personality disorders which often blossom with puberty. This is the root cause of perversity. “Glandular imbalance” has little to do with it and genetics has absolutely none. To proclaim otherwise is to fly in the face of the entire science of human genetics.

                    • “Not only life, but gender are determined at the moment of conception. The latter is determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromasome. Occasional mistakes of nature do occur, but they rarely result in a viable fetus to begin with. ”

                      So gender is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome. Except when it isn’t.

                      Is that what you’re saying?

                      As for “rare mistakes of nature”, Intersex is more common than red hair. 1 in 60 people are Intersex, though most aren’t aware of that. Most such natural variations are asymptomatic, it takes lab tests to determine that a man has no Y chromosome, or a woman does, but it’s not nearly as rare as you seem to believe. Most Intersex variations have no genetic component – the body shape is determined by both genes, and hormonal environment in the womb.

                      You’re familiar with the concept of “identical twins”? You believe they exist, they’re not a myth? That’s the result of a single conception splitting into two foetuses, they are a natural clone. So – are they two people or one? You probably saw at least one case when you went to school. So much for the “rarely result in viable foetuses”. Sometimes they’re of different sexes too, aren’t they?

                      You’re probably not familiar with another thing that happens. Two separate foetuses can fuse, forming a chimera, with two distinct cell-lines. If one is XX, the other XY, what sex is the resultant person? Or do you think that the one body is actually two people, as two conceptions were involved?

                      You know about Calico cats – ginger and white? They’re all mosaics, some cells XY, others XXY or XX, as the gene for ginger fur requires two X chromosomes. They exist. They’re not “outrageously rare” either.

                      The Y chromosome hasn’t got the magical, supernatural powers you seem to think it has.

                      For one thing, peoples genetic makeup can change, the most common cause being a bone marrow transplant, but there are others.

                      “Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients” by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 :

                      “CONCLUSION: Donor-derived cells are capable of composing endometrium in recipients, even those of the opposite sex.”

                      At cell turnover, stem cells produced by the bone marrow take the place of senescent cells. This means that an XX recipient of an XY donor will gradually, over years, have her body become genetically identical to the donor. Even her ovaries will become XY. Yet she remains female.

                      So – not only do Y chromosomes not determine sex (though the SrY gene usually on them plays a huge role), they’re not “immutable characteristics set at birth” either.

                      Please, before making false accusations – “bearing false witness” – out of negligence to do basic research on the topic; before insulting others with words like :”perverted” – think that the simplified kindergarten version of biology you were taught at school might not be quite correct when dealing with unusual cases. 59 times out of 60, the simplified version works well enough, just as a Flat Earth model works well enough when reading a street map.

                      I hope you don’t believe the Earth is flat, do you? If you do, as many devout religious people do, that’s another topic you should do some basic research on before casting aspersions on those who think differently..

                    • True. They all have cross-sexed brains though. That’s detectable on MRI and PET scans, and during autopsies, Men and women are different, anatomically, in that area.

                      See (for example)

                      Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

                      A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

                      White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. – Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.

                      Regional cerebral blood flow changes in female to male gender identity disorder. – Tanaka et al, Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010 Apr 1;64(2):157-61.

                      Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):904-7.

                      Brain gender identity. SW Ecker. Abstract presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting; May 18, 2009; San Francisco.

                      And so on and so on. None from “transgenderists” whatever that may mean, but physicians, endocrinologists, urologists, radiologists, geneticists, and biologists working independently.

                      Whether you call such a neuro-anatomical difference a “natural variation’ or a “birth defect” – a deformity as you put it – is an Ideological rather than factual question. Is left-handedness a “natural variation”? It too is caused by differences in the brain from the norm. What about red hair? That’s caused by a mutation in the CCR1 gene.

                  • The problem is it’s not a mental illness – it’s caused by an anatomical issue.

                    So the solution is to remove fully-functional sex organs.

                    One would think that if transgenderism is the result of a neurological defect, the malfunctioning brain is the organ that should be treated.

                    • One would think that if transgenderism is the result of a neurological defect, the malfunctioning brain is the organ that should be treated.

                      That would seem ideal, yes,. if the patient gives informed consent for their personality to be destroyed, and a new person constructed from the mortal remains.

                      There are obvious ethical issues in doing that, of course, but we need not consider them just yet, because the intervention required is far beyond our level of technology, and liable to be so for some time.

                      Unscrambling an egg would be trivial by comparison, the problem is not just at the gross structural level, the fine structural level, or the cellular level, but would require surgery using nanomachines within each cell. Curing cancer and achieving immortality would be far easier.

                      Simple hormonal intervention during foetal development could also do it – it’s a different matter to “steer” a developmental course in a particular direction than it is to undo the development and re-do from start. We can. and have, already reliably created transsexual experimental animals by relatively small hormonal manipulation in early development, and it’s likely we could do the same on humans, if we’re willing to tolerate the inevitable neural and physical damage on the experimental child subjects until we get it right.

                      Preventing Transsexuality would be a rather harder task, involving the sacrifice of a large number of children for autopsy, both pre-birth and post-birth. Mass murder, in other words, the kind of thing that as a human being would cause me to take action to prevent it, by any means necessary..

                      We know from some tragic medical errors that we can induce actual transsexuality before birth, and effective Transsexuality after birth.

                      The first is described in detail in:
                      Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol(DES) in males and gender-related disorders:results from a 5-year study Scott Kerlin. Proc. International Behavioral Development Symposium July 2005

                      Exposure to DES has as catastrophic an effect on sex development as Thalidomide did on limb development. Informal studies suggested that as many as one in ten of Transsexual women are as they are to due to foetal exposure to DES. The rate of Transsexuality for such DES-exposed people is not 1 in 3000, it’s 1 in 5.

                      The second is described in the few cases where sex reassignment from male to female has been attempted on boys whose genitalia has been destroyed due to medical accidents (The David Reimer case is the classic example), and in cases where genital developmental anomalies led to surgeons attempting to reassign the sex of boys born without genitalia.

                      See Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth by Reiner and Gearhart, N Engl J Med. 2004 January 22; 350(4): 333–341.

                      RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
                      CONCLUSIONS Routine neonatal assignment of genetic males to female sex because of severe phallic inadequacy can result in unpredictable sexual identification. Clinical interventions in such children should be reexamined in the light of these findings.

                      A nice way of saying “OOPS… we shouldn’t do this, or we effectively create Transsexuals, boys with girls bodies”.

                      Such procedures still happen, but are now less popular as more data comes in, and we see the disasters that result.

                    • What he means, Jack (or, at least, what I mean) is that, beyond the pervasive psychobabble, is the fact that people ARE wired as male and female, but that mental traumas early in life can cause that haywire. The mind is what needs to be treated. Surgical mutilation only serves to re-enforce the delusion. It also insures that the victim will be a freak for the rest of his life.

                    • “is the fact that people ARE wired as male and female, but that mental traumas early in life can cause that haywire. The mind is what needs to be treated. ”

                      That doesn’t work though. It’s not as if it hasn’t been tried.

                      That wouldn’t be so bad, if the mortality rate for failed treatment was zero. But it’s close on 100% in some areas, the rest just live in misery.

                      No-one’s claiming the current treatment is “good”. Just far, far better than any alternative that’s ever been tried.

                      Trying to psychiatrically change someone wired female to be wired male doesn’t work. Mental traumas in early life won’t do it either, or at least, we’ve not found sufficient evidence for that to be more than a conjecture. We can’t entirely rule it out in ~5% of cases, so it may play a role in those. We can only prove it doesn’t in ~95%.

                      Atypical Gender Development: a review Besser et al International Journal of Transgenderism 9(1): 29-44. 2006
                      Biological and Psychosocial Correlates of Adult Gender‐Variant Identities: a Review by J.F.Veale & D.E.Clarke, Personality and Individual Differences (2009) 48(4), 357-366

      • Jack Marshall writes: “Gender issues like this are not treated as “mental illness” by the medical community … ”

        This is patently false. Transsexual people are regularly referred to psychiatrists and receive diagnoses such as ICD-10 F64(Transsexualism) which is classified as a personality disorder or DSM-IV 302.85 (GID) which is classed as an Axis I Psychosis.

        It MIGHT very well be true to say that neither Transsexualism nor GID are mental illnesses, but they are most certainly diagnosed and treated by the medical profession as though they were. Careful how you express things Jack Marshall.

        • Transsexuals are not mentally per se ill, and treatment by a psychiatrist does not mean one has mental illness in the sense that it was being used in the thread…mental illness is not what makes a person transexual. Does or can being misaligned sexually lead to various mental and emotional disorders? Sure. Drives me nuts just having discussions like this.

          You’re quibbling.

          • Does or can being misaligned sexually lead to various mental and emotional disorders? Sure. Drives me nuts just having discussions like this.

            I would venture that sexual disorders are like eating disorders- they can lead to mental illness, but persons with such disorders are capable of functioning in society.

          • Jack Marshall, I agree with you that transsexualism is not, in fact, mental illness.

            But you further said (loosely) that transsexual is not treated as mental illness. In fact it is exactly so-diagnosed with treatment pursuant to diagnosis. This is not a quibble, it is the reason that the European Parliament has taken steps to put an end to the practice with effect from ICD-11. See

          • As per the last three comments, I would say that sexual perversion is, by and large, just that… a mental illness induced by childhood trauma. Again, you can reference glandular dysfunction (which is treatable) and genetic mutation (which is not, but is also rare), but trauma takes in the bulk of it. The claim that psychotherapy has been tried and found wanting evades the point. That counselling needs to take place early. Once deviance becomes established in adulthood or late teens, it becomes extremely difficult to cure. This is the reason for the high recidivism rate noted among released child molestors. But the effort must be made, for there is no other way.

            • but trauma takes in the bulk of it.

              You keep on saying that, and many ideologues loudly declaim it, but where’s the evidence?

              You also refer to “sexual perversion”. I assume that means you refer to sexual orientation, rather than difference of sexual differentiation. While an interesting topic in its own right, not relevant to the subject at hand – transsexuality..

              You say that counselling needs to take place early. Since the effects of the neural anomalies regarding transsexuality are visible at 6 months after birth, it has to be before then. Some of the differences between male and fenale brains, observably anomalous in transsexuals, are visible in the autopsies of children at 28 weeks development after conception. How exactly would you “counsel” a 28 week developed foetus? (I might add that i consider this to be a “child” rather than “foetus”, but that’s another off-topic issue)

  2. Pingback: Fairness and the Transgendered Miss Universe Contestant | Ethics … « Ethics Find

  3. As I expected, you launched into a bitter tirade, filled with irrelevancies, arrogance and attempts to redefine both my words and the issue at large. And offering nothing beyond that which is even worth commenting on. Tell me, Zoe, Do you just assume that everyone who doesn’t take the leftist position on perversity is stupid and/or uneducated? Maybe a conservative and a (gasp) Christian besides? I admit fully to those last two labels.

    But, unlike yourself, I also appreciate the worth of truth for the sake of truth and in determining the worth of an issue. Not, you will note, how much political capital I can wring out of it by pandering to (in this case) disturbed people. Because I DO care about their lives and souls- for their own sake, once again- I stand against this insane and depraved concept of giving them the “I’m okay, you’re okay” hogwash on the taxpayer dime and, in the process, further polluting the culture.

    There is such a thing as right and wrong, Zoe. Promoting a self-destructive lifestyle to mentally ill people (who need help, not further confusion) and going to the length of offering them surgical mutilation to indulge their depraved fantasies… this is WRONG.

    • Steven—I really don’t detect anything in Zoe’s responses that would mark her as “leftist”. I think her argument is apolitical. The fact that it supports a progressive/liberal policy position doesn’t make the argument political. I also didn’t find it particularly bitter. The statement that making qualitative character evaluations of people dealing with a complex physiological/genetic disorder with serious life implications is inappropriate seems very reasonable to me, and useful. It’s a more complex issue that most people know or believe. That’s not an insult—her data sure leaves me behind. Live and learn.

      • Sorry, Jack. But I’ve been on the receiving end of enough liberal condecension not to know it when I see it. If she had attempted a point by point dialogue on ethics, I would have accomodated her. Instead, she did (predictably) what effete leftists usually do with a morally indefensible point when challenged. I’ve long since learned that reason- or even the offer to agree to disagree- is utterly wasted on these people. Besides, attempting to clutter an issue with “complexities” is another of their common tactics. I believe in staying focused on the central story and not swayed by fringe issues or allegations.

        • Shall we start again then?

          For one thing, my political leanings are Right-of-Centre, at least in the context of where I live.

          Because this is Reality, rather than Ideology, yes, I’m sorry, it’s complex. I’ve made many over-simplifications to try to communicate the gist of things to an educated, intelligent, but non-specialist audience. I’d have to do the same if I was talking about my PhD thesis topic – Evolutionary Computation and Meta-Genetic Algorithms applied to particularly difficult problems in Quantum Physics and Chemistry. Experimental work, not theoretical.

          All of the papers I mentioned are available on the Net, so you can judge for yourself how much credence to give them. The only one that directly mentions “ethics” is in the context of medical care. The idea is not to tell you what’s ethical, but to expose the factual basis of the situation so you can come to an informed decision yourself. You appear to be labouring under many misapprehensions regarding the facts – that the Y chromosome determines sex for example. That chromosomes can’t change. That Intersex is rarer than having green eyes or red hair. And then coming to ethical conclusions based on erroneous data.

          Tell me, Zoe, Do you just assume that everyone who doesn’t take the leftist position on perversity is stupid and/or uneducated?

          To the contrary., if I thought you were stupid I wouldn’t be wasting my time communicating here. Your comments would have proven any such assumption to be false, anyway.

          Uneducated? Yes, to some degree, as I myself am uneducated in many specialist areas – fluid dynamics, Etruscan sculpture, pneumatic theology to name but a few. Biology is taught particularly poorly when it comes to the science of sex and gender. I’ve even been called in by professors of medicine and psychology to give lessons on it to 3rd year med students, so how can you be blamed for not knowing this stuff? Yes, I assume that pretty much everyone is uneducated on this subject, just as I assume they know little about the Hartree-Fock method of calculating energies of molecular conformers when explaining my PhD work.

    • You’re quite a piece of work. Why don’t you admit you haven’t admit about the tons of scientific work that already established transsexualism as a physical birth condition. Slandering people makes you look small and unprofessional.

      • “Slandering”?! I see. Naturally, if someone takes a politically incorrect stance, resents being talked down to by a self-styled intellectual and says so- he automatically slanders. Thanks for reminding me.

        As to your claim of “tons of scientific work”, may I point out that tons of work have been done on all sorts of things… including the Steady State universe, the Piltdown Man and flying saucers. That doesn’t mean that any of it was worth the paper it was written on. Today, as before, researchers tend to follow the leader in finding a field that’s popular, accepted in academic circles and, therefore, liable to get them a higher degree, tenure and grant money… preferably all of the above. Moreso today, in fact, as standards of conduct have sunk to a low ebb.

        • Today, as before, researchers tend to follow the leader in finding a field that’s popular, accepted in academic circles and, therefore, liable to get them a higher degree, tenure and grant money… preferably all of the above.

          True – which is why until recently, all the papers were written overseas. There is too much pressure from the Radical Left to suppress this data on Ideological grounds.

          You seem to think that Transsexuality is a matter of “political correctness” rather than biology.

          Here’s a quote from the ultra-PC Radical Lesbian Feminist, Professor Mary Daly:

          Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example..

          That is the Radical Left’s party line. In fact, it gets worse. Talking about the “Transsexual Question”, she writes:

          “The Dionysian solution for women, which is violation of our own Hag-ocratic boundaries, is The Final Solution.”

          (Also from her work, Gyn/Ecology) Lest you be in some confusion as to what this means, Professor of Ethics, and Radical Marxist-Feminist Janice Raymond advocates that Trans people be “Morally mandated out of existence”. (From The Transsexual Empire, which contends that so-called Transsexuals are agents of the Christian Patriarchy, trying to infiltrate lesbian spaces). Both books are standard works in Gender Studies courses run by Leftist departments. .

          With such pressure from the Radical Left, and almost as much from the Right, it’s no wonder that grant applications have been tossed unread, as “too controversial” and un-PC. To even attempt such research has historically been the Kiss of Death when it comes to funding in the USA.

          • It’s nice to know that a few radicals have broken ranks on the issue. I feel sorry for their lack of a social life from now on, though. But the fact remains that deviancy is no longer a legitimate medical or psychological issue anymore. Nor was it ever allowed to be a health issue, as per the spread of AIDS. It became a “human rights” (i.e. leftist) political issue. As such, the medical, psychological and academic circles fell into line, not daring to speak out for rationality even if they wanted to.

  4. Jack,
    Loathe as I am to add to the torrent of responses, there is another interesting ethical question regarding Jenna’s case which is the informed consent issues surrounding her reassignment. I have to admit to being taken aback by how feminine she looked and, after doing a small bit of researched, discovered it owed largely to her having begun hormone therapy at 14, to stave off the worst of puberty, before having surgery at 19.

    I’d heard a story on NPR some years back regarding this recent trend and the surrounding issues of whether minors are really adult enough to make such an irreversible decision at such a tender age. Though Jenna said in an interview she knew she was “meant” (I put it in quotes only because I realize it’s a loaded word, not to suggest her claim is invalid. I have no dog in that particular hunt) to be a girl as early as 9, but it does strike me as a tad premature to allow children so young to make such life-altering decisions. On the other hand, as an adult, she apparently harbors no mixed feelings about what she’s done, either. So, who knows?

    Best wishes!

    • Indeed, who knows? I have less trouble with her situation than I do with some others that have come to light recently involving children as young as 4. I hadn’t thought about the informed consent angle, Neil, but it’s a good one. Presumably a responsible physician was involved in the decision. Parents are legally authorized to consent to such matters, but they still have to act responsibly.

      • Anyone interested in the ethical issues, informed consent etc could do worse than to read:

        The treatment of adolescent transsexuals: changing insights. Cohen-Ketternis et al, J Sex Med. 2008 Aug;5(8):1892-7.
        Professionals who take responsibility for these youth and are willing to help should yet be fully aware of the impact of their interventions. In this article, the pros and cons of the various approaches to youngsters with GID are presented, hopefully inciting a sound scientific discussion of the issue.

      • Presumably a responsible physician was involved in the decision.

        At least four in fact, as minimum.

        First, a mental health professional to make the diagnosis. Then a de novo review by a post-doctoral specialist to get a second opinion. Then a specialised MD, an endocrinologist with post-doctoral qualifications. All have to write formal letters of approval, putting their licenses to practice and professional reputations at risk. The evaluation period for adults takes a minimum of 15 months (usually at least twice that), for children many years, usually over a decade.

        Then the surgeon must take all of these reports, review them, and make their own decision.

        All of this is described in the medical Standards of Care version 6. Contrary to popular belief, this is not “cosmetic surgery” that can be obtained on demand.

      • Indeed. But doctors are also required to “do no harm”. When they agree to alter a child’s biochemistry in such a manner- or to surgically deform a healthy person of one sex into the surface facsimile of another in order to bolster a mental derangement- then they are doing massive harm. On the other hand, they get handsomely paid for their Frankensteinian labors.

        • MONDAY, 11 APRIL 2011
          “I would rather have a live daughter than a dead son.”

          Cemeteries can be pretty bleak places, but when it is on the outskirts of a faceless Dutch suburb under a grey January sky, it feel about as about as desolate as you can possibly get. When you are visiting the grave of a child who killed herself in her early teens, the feeling of despair, especially when accompanied by her mother, gives way to an urge to weep bitterly. It is an urge which I am unable to resist as I do the maths subtracting the date of death from the day she was born. It is one thing to be told Juliaantje* was only 14, but to see it carved in marble was too much to bear. Holding her photograph her mother sobs uncontrollably as I hug her while she in turn hugs a precious photograph.

          The picture is of a sunny, smiling, apparently bubbly teenager, with long hair and a grey T-shirt. There is nothing in the picture to suggest that she was transgender, but that is the reason she took her life.

          When she was 12 her mother tried to have her put onto hormone blockers to delay puberty. She didn’t want to develop body hair, a deep voice or have wet dreams. She had already self-harmed when young, trying to slice her penis off with a pair of scissors. However, in what was clearly a borderline decision, the psychologists decided to that she should not be given these drugs. She should be given counselling instead. In despair her mother, a single parent, tried to take her to the United States, but the air fare and the £200 a month cost of these drugs was way beyond her means. Her father had no money either and both sets of grandparents didn’t want to know.

          Two years later the talking therapy failed. Juliaantje took a massive overdose and died, having self-harmed, abused alcohol and other substances for more than a year before that.

          “She was an intelligent and lively girl.” Her mother tells me through the tears and a large glass of Genever in a nearby café, probably the only thing that can deaden the pain of losing her only child. “She had a great future ahead of her, she could have done anything, been a doctor, a lawyer her teachers said…” Her voice breaks. Her happy nature had disappeared when male puberty really hit. “Her voice broke and she started to get facial hair and hair on her chest. She wore make up and turtle-neck jumpers to hide it all, but she simply couldn’t deal with the way her body was developing…”

          Did she blame the psychiatrists? No. Psychiatry is never going to be an exact science, there will always be people who don’t fit into their categories. She does however, feel that they could have given her the benefit of the doubt. “The effects of hormone blockers are easy to reverse, you just stop taking them…” There would have been no risk to her daughter if, at any time she decided that she did not want to be a girl she could simply have stopped, and male puberty would have started.

          Hormone Blockers are essentially a way for young trans people and children to leave their options open. They open an extended open window of choice, which gives them time to think about their future, a time during which young people can decide whether they wish to remain the sex they were assigned at birth, whether that be male or female, or whether they need gender reassignment surgery after the age of 18. Talking to mothers of transgender children in the UK who have been prescribed hormone blockers, usually at great cost (£200 a month plus the cost of a consultation in and flight to the United States) one thing comes across loudly and clearly; “I would rather have a live daughter than a dead son.” One of them told me. One mother had remortgaged her house to pay the cost of these drugs knowing what her child was like, she realised that this would probably be the only way to keep her alive.

          Another mother talked of how her young child had been prescribed a cocktail of a dozen drugs, including Ritalin, because of behaviour problems at home and at school. Yet when her child was recognised as transgender everything changed. As soon as she was treated as a girl, the tantrums, the bedwetting, the crying, the screaming, the hyperactivity, the violence, just stopped, as did the need for any of the drugs. “She became happy and contented almost overnight, just because we treated her like a girl! The psychologist who spotted this probably saved her life.”

          Predictably the accusation of “child abuse” has been levelled at those who advocate prescribing hormone blockers to children between the ages of 12 and 15 (they already are prescribed to those over the age of 16) in the UK. This flies in the face of the evidence in both the United States and Holland, where these drugs have been successfully, and harmlessly prescribed for many years. It also flies in the face of the experience of parents of transgender children, who have lived a day-to-day existence, hoping that their child is still alive and in one piece. Until her daughter was prescribed hormone blockers at age 16 one mother told me of the anguish she and her husband felt when their child had gone missing for a few days when she was 14. “We really thought we would never see her again. Every time the phone rang we thought it would be the police wanting us to identify a body.”

          Now that this technology has been developed, not making it available to all those children who need it is child abuse. Three years ago the trans community was shocked by the suicide of a transgender child who was only 10 years old. The allegation of “child abuse” has been levelled at parents who permit their transgender child to express the gender they prefer and who let them have hormone blockers. Yet this is effectively child abuse in reverse. Not to allow trans children to express their gender identities is actually child abuse. Those who throw accusations of child abuse around without knowing the facts are the ones who are child abusers by proxy; putting pressure on parents to force their children to conform to the gender they were assigned at birth no matter what the consequences.


          • Now you’re trying to make an emotional argument. I’m wondering just how much misery has been incurred by newly post pubescent kids discovering they had a problem in relating swith the opposite sex and, instead of getting wise parental counseling, were instead told that their qualms were the result of a “gay gene” and that they should embrace it with “pride”. Excessive body hair after puberty is a glandular condition that can be treated, BTW.

            • Of course I’m making an emotional argument! I’ve already shown you the dry and dusty numbers, the experimental data.

              This shows the meaning behind the numbers. These are not cyphers, cardboard cut-outs or pawns in the Culture Wars. Your Ideological beliefs, ones not based on evidence, kill children when adopted.

              I’m sure you don’t like that any more than I do. You seem like a highly moral person. All that remains is for me to present enough data to you so you must either retreat into a “la la la I can’t hear you” world of ignoring all data about a Round Earth as being part of some nefarious plot to undermine society, or to show you that your beliefs, based on not having this data, are erroneous.

              The treatment of adolescent transsexuals: changing insights. Cohen-Ketternis et al, J Sex Med. 2008 Aug;5(8):1892-7.

              Professionals who take responsibility for these youth and are willing to help should yet be fully aware of the impact of their interventions. In this article, the pros and cons of the various approaches to youngsters with GID are presented, hopefully inciting a sound scientific discussion of the issue.

              Please read this.

              • It’s because your “data”- often from dubious sources- defies all logic. You’ve become so caught up in trying to excuse perversion and those who profit from it that you’ve lost all sense of perspective. You’ve been repeating long, obtuse essays from those who are similarly inclined. Clear away the mental driftwood and the bottom line emerges. Sexual deviance is a terrible, soul-destroying affliction. It is NOT genetic. Occasionally, glandular imbalances contribute to it, but it is mainly the result of childhood trauma. Unless it’s approached on this basis, no cure is possible. Only more harm.

                • Evidence? You’ve made a number of assertions there, care to justify them?

                  First – why are the sources “dubious’. Please show me ones that give evidence that contradicts these experimental results. Then we can judge their credibility.

                  Second – Childhood Trauma – please show me the surveys that show this to be the case. Not mere assertions by yourself or others.

                  I’m not trying to convince you; at this stage, you’ve convinced me that no amount of mere evidence would do that. I am asking those who read this though to take a look at the entire comment trail, and make their own judgments from that.

                  And who knows, if you can show me facts I’m not aware of, it may change my mind. I reserve the right to do that, but you need to show me, not browbeat me with repeated “the Earth is FLAT!!!! PERIOD!!!” stuff. That won’t work.

                    • Why do you say it’s not flat? Because there’s evidence against that, right? It’s not a matter of politics, or ideology – though was thought to be at one time, by St John Christostom for example. Not for the last 1700 years though, except amongst certain US Fundamentalist churches (the “Christian Catholic Apostolic Church” comes to mind).

                      In 1888 Scotsman John Alexander Dowie (1847-1907) brought these ideas to America, where he founded the Christian Catholic Church in Chicago. Dowie was a faith healer, and the journal Leaves of Healing was the official publication of the church. The church grew rapidly, and Dowie realized his dream of founding a christian community in 1901, the Zion community located on the Lake Michigan shore, 40 miles north of Chicago.

                      Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870-1942) took over leadership of the Church, which became the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion.

                      Voliva kept tight control on his 6000 followers, which made up the community. The church schools taught the flat earth doctrine. His 100,000 watt radio station broadcast his diatribes against round earth astronomy, and the evils of evolution.

                      In its early years, Zion was a one-religion community. A Scottish lace industry and a bakery were established. Zion brand fig bar cookies and White Dove chocolates originated there.

                      In the town of Zion a strict code of morality was imposed, by law, on all persons who set foot inside city limits. Irving Wallace, in his book The Square Pegs, tells of his childhood memories of Zion. There it was unlawful for women to wear short dresses, high heels, bathing suits or lipstick. Ham, bacon, oysters, liquor and tobacco were banned, as were drugstores, medical buildings and movie theaters. A ten o’clock curfew was rigidly enforced. You could be arrested for whistling on Sunday. These laws were enforced by Voliva’s police force, called the Praetorian Guard, whose helmets carried the word ‘PATIENCE’ and whose sleeves bore images of doves. Policemen wore Bibles and clubs on their belts.

                      Irving Wallace interviewed Voliva in 1932. Voliva declared that the Bible was his entire scientific library. Astronomers were ‘ignorant fools’. The sun, he said, was only three thousand miles away, and only thirty-two miles in diameter. When asked why he thought the sun so near the earth, he said, “God made the sun to light the earth, and therefore must have placed it close to the task it was designed to do. What would you think of a man who built a house in Zion and put a lamp to light it in Kenosha, Wisconsin?”

                      So how come you discount the value of evidence in this case?

                      You’re a man of some considerable intellect – the parallels here cannot escape your notice.

  5. IMO she did NOT lie. She is, and always has been, female. Anyone with a basic understanding of transsexualism would concur. The pageant’s rules, or at least how they are interpreted, need to be updated.

    • She told the pageant she did not fill out the form truthfully, knowing what it meant. I’m sympathetic, but don’t play language games with me. When she was born, naturally, she was determined to be a male. Her birth certificate said male. She was, by the clear meaning of the rule, a natural born male, not a female. I agree that the rule needs to be refined, but she did lie, which is to say, she intended to deceive, and did not give the whole truth.

      • When she was born, naturally, she was determined to be a male. Her birth certificate said male.

        It comes down to the definition of male and female, and such a simple, common-sense issue turns out to be not so simple after all. There are a number of people whose birth certificates say “female” who have fathered children, for example. So while appearance at birth establishes a presumption of sex, I don’t think it’s necessarily conclusive.

        Here’s an example:
        The ‘Guevedoces’ of the Dominican Republic

        Honesty compels me to say I can’t be objective here though.

        • It’s a little like the discussion between Alice and The White Knight. There’s the name, what the thing is called, what the name is called, and what the thing IS. What is a “naturally born woman”? A baby that is called a female? A baby that “is” female? According to who?

          • Well said.

            The legal system has severe problems here. Different people can come to different conclusions, often because of lack of data, sometimes out of ideological prejudice. I don’t mean “bigotry”, I mean pre-judging a situation regardless of the facts.

            For example, quoting from Litteton vs Prange

            “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

      • Somatically, from the photo, it’s obvious she has had an anomalous puberty – as many standard factory model men and women have.

        An Endo would look at her back, and see the spine is that of a 6ft plus male. The relatively short legs indicate premature bone end closure, that is, a male-pattern (ie early) timing of it without the growth spurt beforehand that is essential to be classed as male-bodied.

        Standard Factory Model women tend to have longer legs, and shorter spines. Same with men with androgen insensitivity (AI). Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) tend to have long spines, short legs.

        Her photo is consistent with a 46XX masculinised female who’s had HRT early in puberty to give her a more usual appearance for a woman. It would not surprise me at all if she’s one of the 1 in 10 apparently transsexual women who are technically not trans at all, but Intersex.

        To see what I mean –

        Here’s an NSFW photo of a 46XY male with moderate androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). If the AIS was complete, he’d be shorter and look stereotypically female. Many supermodels have CAIS, it makes them look “ultra-feminine” as their cells are immune to testosterone.

        Note the long legs, more typical of females. I think this would be AIS grade 2-3, with 7 being CAIS (complete AIS).

        This one is of a 46XX male with one of the common masculinising forms of CAH. Note that only 1 in 10 such people identify as male, and there is no correlation between degree of external masculinisation and gender identity..

        Note the short legs, indicating premature bone-end closure.

        This one is of a 46XY female with the uncommon feminising form of CAH. (3BHSD)


        In terms of build, skeleton etc she could be the 46XX male’s sister (she’s not, BTW). The similarities are obvious. Now look at Ms Talackova’s photo to see the same pattern of spine and leg length, even if build is gracile not robust.
        I know your pithy one-liner was meant to be a political comment, not a biological statement of fact, but I thought I’d show in pictures the kinds of thing that happen, that the question of “what do we mean by male and female” is anything but clear-cut. What seems to work best is to look at the neirology first, then only if that’s ambiguous, other matters such as shape, endocrinology, chromosomes etc.

          • I do not consider saving the life of a child “criminal”, and have difficulty understanding the mentality of those who do.

            I accept that that is your ideological belief, and that you have the right to express your opinion.

            Everyone has the right to theor own opinion, but no-one has the right to their own facts.

            • Your “facts” are illogical. When you introduce hormone therapy like that to a growing child, you are disrupting it’s natural development in ways that can often not be forseen. The crime was not only in the medical malpractice, but the surgical one that followed.

              • Facts are neither logical nor illogical. They just are. Even if your Ideology says that they shouldn’t be.

                With treatment, they live, but may have negative long-term health effects from the treatment, and certainly have short-term negative effects (sterility for example, post-operative risk of infection etc.)

                Without treatment, they die.

                We can’t do a good statistical treatment comparing those who have had treatment, and those who have not, because the cohort that was refused treatment are dead. We can compare those who get early treatment with those who get it later, as enough of those survive to get a decent sample.

                Not all. But enough.

                The biggest issue is to decide how bad the situation is, and whether such treatment is necessary. Very obviously, in view of the negative short-term consequences, and possible negative long-term ones, accurate diagnosis is crucial, or in attempting to save lives, we blight them. To make a mistake would be horrific, we’d create the problem we’re trying to cure.

                In several studies this protocol has been evaluated
                [16–18]. From these studies it appeared that the youth who were selected for early hormone treatment (starting between 16 and 18 years) no longer suffered from gender dysphoria, and that 1–5 years after surgery, they were socially and psychologically functioning not very different from their peers. Their scores on various psychological instruments, such as a shortened Dutch form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Symptom Check List-90 [19], were considerably more favorable than scores of a group of subjects who had been treated in adulthood in the Amsterdam clinic, and scores were in the normal range as compared to normative samples. By contrast, there was also a cohort of adolescents presenting with gender dysphoria, who after longterm assessment (which, depending on the degree of gender dysphoria and nonrelated pathology, could take a year or even longer) were not deemed eligible for early treatment, and they did not pursue SR at later ages. So, the burden of the GID, the unabating pursuit of SR, and clinical assessment provided by our clinic appeared to provide acceptable selection criteria for good candidates for SR before adulthood.,

                It is ethical to try alternate therapies – up to a point. That point being when the death toll is too high, the success rate too low, or in this case, zero. That point was reached over 40 years ago, and the attempts since then have done nothing to change that, only to confirm it.

                Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.

                — Standards of Care v7

              • Mark you can argue with these men till the end of time, they will pay some scientist, some doctor, some therapist or whoever to prove their “facts”. They really think they are right. Science and facts can be brought with a price. I’m not argueing that I truly believe that these men feel that like their women in their head, hell, a Schizophrenia often feels in his head like he’s a “demon” or that there is another person in his head, a pedophile often “feels” in his head that it’s o.k to molest children, ect…we don’t let these people run around doing this because they “feel” this way in their heads that it’s right. We direct them to therapy and medication, we don’t fall into their fantasy world, not something that people are born with and society should accept However, society, generally at this point sees no harm in letting these men run around saying they are women. Hell, let them say whatever they want, let the “goverment” put it into “law” if you have a sex change then “your a women”, however, they will never change what’s in peoples hearts, minds, and souls. A man will never take these men seriously, it will always be hard for them to find true relationships that go don’t go beyond “sexual”. Transy men always claim, “we look better than natural born women”, “your man wants us”. Sure, there are some men that might want what’s taboo, they want to try it, but hey, men fuck anything in skirts. Sure, with all your make up caked on your face, and plastic surgery, you do look like a woman, but when that man that man fucks a transexual , he knows he aint sleeping with no woman. When that make up comes off a transy look like a man. Period. When he’s ready to start a family, he will go find a women that can carry his child, or a woman that has “eggs” that can carry his child. And yes, men do leave and end relationships with women who can’t have children, b/c men want to leave a legacy. A man, with a career in mind and “traditional family values” will never bring transy home to his mama. He might even keep transy on the side but his wife will always be the one by his side.

                • So you’re saying that every researcher on the subject in the world has been paid off?
                  Surely there’d be one good, scientific study that contradicts this udata? One with long-term follow-up, and documenting the method?

                  Sure, with all your make up caked on your face, and plastic surgery, you do look like a woman, but when that man that man fucks a transexual , he knows he aint sleeping with no woman. When that make up comes off a transy look like a man. Period.

                  You know this how?

                  Given that 9 in 10 Trans women live “stealth”, not revealing their medical histories, your ideas seem contrary to the evidence.

                  Stating “The Earth is Flat. Period. The Moon is made of Green Cheese. Period. ” isn’t very helpful, even though you may believe that, and that all them “scientists” who say otherwise have been bribed

                  Sooner or later, someone’s going to ask why you believe this. Saying “I just know.” won’t cut it..

                  Using words like ‘nigger”, “transy” or “kike” does reveal a lot about the commenter though.

                  You’re entitled to your own opinions. No-one’s entitled to their own facts.

                  • How many honest researchers are there who would tell you that your own opinions are pure hogwash? Or are you trying to tell me that, as in global warming, “the science is in”? When politics invades science, the result tends to be pseudo-science aimed to please the benefactor.

                  • Uhm, Why would a transexual not reveal their medical history? You are a man who has had sex with a man, unless you are a virgin. Everybody knows that men who have sex with men are in a highly infectable class of aids and HIV. So, why would they not reveal their history. That’s lying and misleading and very dangerous. Facts and oppions are interchangeable. Somsething is a “fact” until it’ proven wrong for all your “facts” I have mine too. Lastly, you refered to transexuals as “I ans” in your previous post, so what I added an “y” and made it “transy”.

    • You right, it needs to be updated to maybe reflect a “beauty pagent for beautiful people”. Jenna is a beautiful and stunning man, so I think he should be able to compete with beautiful people. Hey, have a non gendered or non sexed beauty pageant. Hey, just b/c he’s in a pageant and people have “bended” the rules don’t make it true that he’s a woman or that they “believe” it. Some peope simple don’t want a PR nightmare or years in court o.k. Hell, that’s boggle down the Supreme Court with REAL issues o.k. I don’t blame Donald Trump for allowing Jenna into the pageant. It’s going to boost his ratings, that have been lagging in recent years, and it saves him time an money on lawyer fees. Hell, he’s probably like, whatever, if he thinks he’s in woman, so what. It’s a freak show that’s what it’s going to be. Nobody actually believe transexuals are really woman and nobody ever will except transexuals. I dont care what people say on t.v. Celebrities have lost thier JOBS disagreeing with the gay community, nobody wants to put themselves and their lively hoods in harms way debating gays and transexuals. In fact, they really say “I agree with eqaul rights for all people,and the gay community”, not b/c they really do but alot of times to score browny points and to let the gay community know that they won’t speak out. It’s really becomming taboo to say “gay and trasexual is wrong”.

      • It’s a freak show that’s what it’s going to be. Nobody actually believe transexuals are really woman and nobody ever will except transexuals. I dont care what people say on t.v.

        That was a common view about Blacks in the 19th century, and Jews in the 20th. That they weren’t really human. Both views are still common in some parts of the world. In the US, not so much, but you still find the odd pocket of them.

        Those holding such views continued to think that everyone else thought that way too, long after they became tiny, marginalised minorities.

        Perhaps you should broaden your social circles, if you wish to see what others really think. States first started legally recognising trans people as their target sex in 1955, and all but a handful do today.

        What really matters is what’s true of course. Reality isn’t a popularity contest. The Earth isn’t Flat, regardless of how many may think it is.

  6. it figures that an ass like donald trump ran this contest. yet,if one of his slutty blonde whores wanted to be in a man’s contest,all the horny assholes would have no problem with that!

  7. zoebrain – Thank you for your informed input into this discussion. I stayed out of it because I felt too strong a desire to go on attack mode to combat comments made (primarily) by Steven, but didn’t have time to back up my retorts with the detail you did. Kudos.

    Jack – She admitted she lied on the application. But clearly this is a person who has known for the majority of her life that she was, in fact, born a woman trapped in a man’s body, a woman who identifies herself as a woman. I think we’re quibbling over the ethics of whether or not she really lied on the application. If she had said she did not lie on the application, would you still say she had been unethical? Do we know the circumstances under which she was questioned when she allegedly admitted to lying on the application? Perhaps there were very specific questions asked which prompted this “confession”.

    In a beauty pageant, of all venues, surgery of any type should never be an issue. Most, if not all, of the contestants that make it to the national level in the USA pageant have had plastic surgery. They’re all trying to look different than the way nature intended. The Miss America Pageant has fewer plastic surgery aficionados on stage for the final night of competition – but that pageant is a scholarship pageant first, and a beauty pageant second.

    • Regarding the misrepresentation on the application, obviously I can’t tell what her true intent was. I doubt that she read the wording and said, “Well, that’s me!” My guess is that she felt that the wording was unfair in her case, that she did not technically qualify but that it was unfair, and that if she was literally truthful she would be disqualified. I think the lawyerly argument that she WAS a “naturally-born female” would be disingenuous, since that is clearly not what the organizers meant. She answered the way she did to hide her circumstances, and that’s a lie any way you slice it.

      • That is one way of looking at it, one that has much to commend it. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I will give a counter-argument I feel is more persuasive.

        Suppose the question was
        Are you a) Human or b) Jewish?

        How would, or how more germanely, how should such a question be answered by someone with a maternal Jewish grandmother?

        No matter what the answer, in either case by answering “correctly” you’re confirming that Jews are not human.

        Under these circumstances, is it more correct in a moral sense to answer a) – thereby ignoring the plain intent of the question, albeit giving a response you believe to be “true” in more than just a legal sense – or b), answering in the sense,intended – as no matter what your creed, having a “right of return” to Israel is granted if there’s direct matrilineal descent from a Jewish mother.

        It is my contention that this “naturally born” wording is directly analogous to this situation.

        One could dishonestly weasel out of it by saying “a) – I wasn’t born by caesarean, I’m a woman, so I’m a natural-born woman” – casuistry at its worst, though technically not incorrect. Or honestly give the same answer, “a)”, without further comment, thereby denying the legitimacy of the question.

        I would not consider either a “lie”, though the first is an attempt to mislead, therefore morally wrong. Given that she was open about her history, it’s something the Canadian organisers knew beforehand, and she knew they knew, I don’t think there was any intention to mislead. Not them, anyway.

        • Except that the question you posit is obviously and intentionally flawed, because it ignores the fact that either choice is a subset of the other. “Are you a naturally-born female?” to most people is neither ambiguous nor impossible to answer, It excludes current males, females who weren’t born naturally (cloned?), and, though it is clumsily implied, females who did not arrive at that gender in the way that the average person would call “naturally.” I very much doubt that the contestant honestly believed that the requirement didn’t exclude her as written or commonly understood. Saying one can quibble with its terminology, which one clearly can, is different than the case of the question you present, in which someone can argue without rebuttal that the question cannot be answered at all by a certain class of individuals. The “naturally born female” question, in contrast, can definitely be answered accurately and truthfully—the only question is how.

        • You seem compelled to relegate any dissent in your outrageous opinions to that of Ptolemaic Theory! Sorry, but I have a science degree, too. All you’re doing is admitting that you haven’t buffaloed me with your extensive snow-job.

          • So give evidence. You know how to do that.

            Now this is just a guess mind you – but somehow I don’t think your science degree was in biology. Or genetics.

            That’s ok, neither are mine. What matters is not our qualifications, but our ability to look at evidence, and do experiments to try to disprove our hypotheses.

  8. It excludes current males, females who weren’t born naturally (cloned?), and, though it is clumsily implied, females who did not arrive at that gender in the way that the average person would call “naturally.”

    Why does it exclude current males, if they were born looking female, and have had no “un-natural” intervention? And if it doesn’t include them (on the common-sense grounds that they’re guys), would it include current females, born looking male but having naturally changed since then?

    To me, the question isn’t obvious.

    Example: – I’ve already shown a link to the effects of 5ARD. This one shows the less complete ones of 17BHSD:


    The rate of 5ARD in the Dominican Republic of 5ARD is about 1 in 50. The rate of 17BHSD in Jubayah, Gaza is 1 in 80.

    • “Are you a naturally born female?” means, I believe, by the plain and typical meaning of the words and structure, 1) Are you (currently) a female, and 2) Were you born that way? You must be able to answer “yes” to both questions, or the answer is “no.” Thus it excludes males of any kind, past or present.

  9. The National Childbirth Trust, Britain’s largest charity for parents, would not agree with your definition. They recruit 65,000 parents-to-be as new members each year. That’s just the UK. http://www.nct.org.uk/

    What organisation supports your view of what it means?

    • I’m not sure what you’re asking. If I’m an entrant, I interpret a question according to my understanding of the language and how it is used. I don’t ask how some other organization interprets the question, other than the one asking me, and still, they are bound by a reasonable interpretation of words by their plain meaning. This is how I would understand the question if I had to answer it. When I deal with National Childbirth Trust, then their interpretation will matter. What IS their interpretation? Don’t keep me in suspense!

      • You really need to know the history here, what’s happened in other, similar contests.

        It’s all about appearances, not of the contestants, but of the contest. Anything remotely controversial or of salacious interest is right out.

        This all came to a head when Ms Black Teen USA – I think it was 1979 – went to a fertility clinic long after she’d been crowned, and was found to be 46XY with CAIS. Intersex. “Male chromosomes”. Worse, under the rules of the time, there was nothing they could do about stripping her of her title.

        There was quite the 3-day wonder about it, and the organisers lost revenue due to the sensationalist nonsense that was written at the time.

        Similarly, there have been a number of rape victims, some molested as young as 12, who became pregnant (often by their father), and these too are excluded from entering.lest it give anyone the vapors. Hence the separate “morals”, “pregnancy” and :”natural woman” clauses. It’s to stop controversy, by excluding trans and intersex people, and in fact, anyone who’s controversial in any matter to do with sex. The idea is to sweep all such distasteful matters under the rug.

        That is the intent.

        They can’t come out and say “no transsexuals”, “no Intersex”. That would be seen as discrimination, and against the “wholesomeness” that is supposed to be part of the contest. Even to mention that such things can exist is taboo. Thus the wording has to ensure that such “things” are see as not “real” women, not “really” human.

        The wording is the best they could come up with, and was added relatively recently, many years after the words on racial purity were removed (and didn’t that cause a bun-fight! Almost as bad as the invention of the birth-control pill, so absence of pregnancy was no longer a reliable indicator of virginity, but I digress).

        I don’t have the details to hand, it’s not an area I’m really au fait with except as it impacts Intersex women. Different contests have different rules anyway. The one thing they have in common is that contestants must be “wholesome”, un-controversial in a societal sense. In world contests, that means uncontroversial in all countries from which contestants take part.

        As regards the NCT, in common with most such UK organisations, until recently the UK Gender Recognition Act legislated that trans women were to be considered for all purposes as “natural born” women, changed birth certificates and everything.

        The recent UK Equality Act now makes a distinction between “women” and “persons with or without gender recognition certificates”, allowing discrimination in certain very restricted contexts against someone who appears insufficiently stereotypically female, regardless of other facts.

        Thus a rape crisis centre is now permitted to refuse service to an actual trans woman (as her presence might upset other vulnerable women if they knew her history), and also butch lesbians (whose appearance might lead them to be mistaken for trans women). This was a bit of an own-goal by transphobic radical feminist lesbians who consider Intersex women to be “failed males” (as Germaine Greere put it), and Trans women to be “really men”.

        A lot like the very conservative misogynist sponsors of beauty contests in fact, Blair’s law at work.

      • The National Childbirth Trust regards a person as being naturally born if the mother receives neither anesthetics nor surgery during the confinement and delivery. This universally understood definition of natural birth has been around at least since the 1930s.

        • I really don’t care how long such a definition has been in use. There are other definitions also in use, like in, for example, the Constitution’s. Why would pageant organizers care whether or not anesthesia was used? Do you really think that they would disqualify a contestant who was born by C-section? I am 100% certain that what you say is the definition of “natural born,”, however it may be used elsewhere, is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand and the context here, and I’m puzzled that you or anyone would think otherwise,,,because it makes absolutely no sense.

          • I do see your point of course; but I also think the phrase is capable of other reasonable interpretations;

            1) To ban any “surgically enhanced” females – those with mammary augmentation, for example. They must be “naturally born”, in their “natural, unaltered state”.

            2) To ban men who have had their bodies altered to superficially appear female, as opposed to Trans or Intersex women.

            Was Ms Talackova female at birth? Neurologically and psychologically, yes. On that objective basis, I’d certainly say that she was female since about the 12th week of gestation.

            That’s because I believe the only definition of sex that doesn’t lead to absurdities is one that involves mind and brain anatomy, not chromosomes, or appearance at birth, or current appearance. This is not, however, a universally held view, nor even a popular one outside the realms of those who’ve studied the science.

            Please consider this case – something rather more important than who can enter a beauty contest. Ask yourself, is “Sally” a “natural born woman” in this case before the Australian Family Court?

            RE: SALLY (SPECIAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE) [2010] FamCA 237

            • More duck, dodge and weave. You know, it’s really simple. Was the subject in question born with XY or XX chromosomes? Was the subject born with a penis or a vagina? Sperm glands or ovaries? Does it shave its face or legs?! This “neurological” blather is just that. Children don’t and can’t change their gender. They can, however, be mentally altered by trauma or other illicit influences while still young. This is not a “medical” issue, per se. This is an indictment of a culture that induces such concepts on innocent children and then caters to them.

              • So the woman who gave birth to three children is male? Is that what you’re saying?

                How about those with 5ARD who look female at birth, vagina included, but at puberty “sprout muscles, testes, and a penis”? Are they female, even if they father chuldren, as a few can do?

                As regards “sperm glands or ovaries” – what about those with both? Or (more commonly) Ovotestes, ot streak gonads?

                A regards shaving – PCOS, which affects one in 50 women, can lead to facial hisutism. They have to shave daily, or have electrolysis.

                Look, you can, if you wish, define all humans with Y chromosomes as “male”. Most males have Y chromosomes, most females do not. But you can equally define everyone above average height as “male”, since “men are taller than women”. It makes just as much sense.

                As for your statements about “mentally altered by trauma or other illicit influences while still young.”, are you referrimg to Demonic posession or what? If so, well, that’s your religious belief, just as some believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. And just as ill-evidenced. Same with the “childhood trauma” idea, there’s no actual evidence to say that has the slightest effect. Some Trans people have had childhood trauma, but mostly after they revealed their transsexuality, not before (especially true for Trans men). Of the others, there’s no greater incidence of Trauma than for those not Transsexual.

                • You’ve let your ideology draw you so deep into the jungle that you can’t see the forest anymore. Men don’t give birth, they induce it. Trying to alter my words as inferences to “demonic possession” only reveals your own lack of basis.

                  • I was being serious, in my experience many who believe as you do credit Demonic Possession.

                    Gender Identity Change in a Transsexual:An Exorcism
                    David H. Barlow, Ph.D., Gene G. Abel, M.D., and Edward B. Blanchard
                    Archives of Sexual Behavior, VoL 6, No. 5, 1977

                    My apologies for the misunderstanding.

                    The Leftist ideological view has always been stuff like this:

                    I-dentity (aka trans) politics is fundamentally LIBERTARIAN. It is ahistorical and acontextual. It essentializes sex stereotypes by renaming them consensual “gender identities.” It invisibilizes power structures that give rise to female oppression. It is anti-feminist.


                    See also:
                    Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects
                    of Transsexual Surgery
                    By Janice G. Raymond
                    Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics
                    and Women’s Studies
                    Hampshire College/University of Massachusetts
                    Amherst, Massachusetts
                    June, 1980

                    Questions about the causes of transsexualism and the proper methods of treatment have been hitherto restricted to the domains of psychology and medicine. But as an ethicist, I would maintain that these issues of causation and treatment are often embedded with social values and philosophical beliefs — values and beliefs about the so-called natures of women and men, for example.Historically, one could say that some people have always felt “trapped” in the wrong body, in the wrong skin, and in the wrong period of time. But this feeling never certified them as members of the “right” body, skin, or period of time. For example, persons who felt “trapped” in black skin were never encouraged to undergo a pigmentation change. Ultimately, it was recognized that such “trapped” feelings were encouraged by a society that oppressed and discriminated against black people, and that it was the society that needed changing, not the individual black. In the same way, to acknowledge that a man who feels trapped in his native-born body is a transsexual (and ultimately, through hormonal and surgical intervention, a woman), is to ignore the social causes and ramifications that surround the issue. Indeed, one must ask why it is possible in this society that persons could even talk about a “female mind in a male body.”If transsexualism is a disease, then does desire qualify as disease? As Thomas Szasz has asked, does the old person who wants to be young suffer from the “disease” of being a “transchronological” or does the poor person who wants to be rich suffer from the “disease” of being a “transeconomical?”[2]Transsexualism as disease raises many deeper issues about the medical model in general and the ways in which transsexualism has come to the defined as legitimate medical territory.

                    And much, much more.

                    There is a strong streak of trans-hatred in GLB leftist circles. Raymons’s report to the Carter administration was responsible for the removal of medical care from federal and state programs, care that until then had been provided based on medical advice, and by republican administrations.

                    it is only relatively recently that the Right has climbed on to the anti-Trans bandwagon. Before then it wasn’t an issue, though anti-GLB activism was.

                    • The “Transes” jumped on the Left’s wagon train first, Zoe. That’s because they were looking for a sponsor that had no rationality or standards beyond acquiring a reliable voting bloc. No conservatives were out to persecute deviants. The breaking point was when they, in conjunction with their political and media allies, decided to come after our children.

                    • You mean like this – a quote from the Hate Group “Mass Resistance”?

                      “…transgender/transsexual” activists… want to offer your children on the bloody altar of transsexuality — pulling them into sex-change operations involving unimaginable bodily mutilations and hormonal manipulations.

                      The culture of death has created a compulsion in the souls of the homosexual radicals and their “trans” allies, driving them ever further into new perversions. There is no bottom to this pit of depravity, and they will drag many innocent victims along with them: the young, the lonely, the psychologically and physically wounded, the confused – including some of your children and grandchildren, family, friends and neighbors. There will be no safe haven. You cannot cocoon in your homes or churches. Our public schools, businesses, public accommodations (which may include churches), your employers and insurers, will all be forced to yield to yet-undefined perversions, protected by law.”

                      The law that would supposedly cause this was passed some time ago. Similar laws have been in force, sometimes for decades, in 40% of the USA.

                      Number of children dragged from homes and churches and mutiliated by “Trans activists” remains constant at zero.

  10. I tried to read bits and pieces, but i think it comes down what what you define male and female. if you want to say male is purely XY and female is XX, then go for it. But then to go a step further and say that all males have penis and all females have vaginas, or what ever fact you want to add to the definition of male or female would cause conflicts because there are times when that does not hold true. So it goes, you may define a male as XY, but the addition of a qualifier of having a penis and not having a vagina would make the definition conflicting. What do you call a person who with XY genotype but has purely female phenotype? It is really a question that depends on definition of male and female, isn’t it? In my current opinion a definition of sex depending purely on genotype is too narrow to be a definition and will probably become a generalization. When i learned that XY people could have an inactivated SRY gene and be phenotypically female it blew my mind. Im glad you all are having a nice debate, it is a useful exercise of the mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.