Question - continuing on from the "theories" thread

[TVStevie]

I've deliberately made this separate from the other thread, although it is connected in a way.

Many of us are familiar with the theory that gender/sexual identity is defined in utero as a result of the hormones that we are exposed to. My question is this: If the hormonal imbalance was correctible, should it be? My argument in favour of this would be that we would do the same if it was any other correctible condition - babies that are born without immune systems can be given thymus transplants, for example - so why should gender/sexual identity be treated any differently? Put another way, if we had congenital heart defects that could be corrected before birth, would we be arguing that it's one of nature's quirks and, as such, should be left as-is or even celebrated?

I hope I don't upset people unnecessarily, although I've a feeling that I will. Sorry in advance - I'm just trying to guage people's opinions here.

[Angie G]

Stevie if it were correctible I don't think I would go for it I like me this way :hugs:
Angie

[Karren H]

I'd say that even if you knew for sure, which no one does, (and I personaly done care to know why)! that unless its a potential life threatening problem with the newborn... Don't mess with it...

Karren

[Holly]

Stevie, I don't believe your comparison of being TG to having a life threatening condition such as immune deficiency or congenital heart defects is valid. Being TG is not a life threatening condition. In the case of Transsexual individuals, many do opt for surgery to correct their "condition." Let me ask your same question in a slightly different way... If scientists discovered why some people were born left handed, would we treat that condition so that they would be born right handed? I'd say no. It's one of the things that give us as human beings individuals our own identity. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be TG, no matter where it may fall on the continuum, add character and flavor to society. I would not want to opt out of that. How sad if everyone was simply a mirror of one another.

[Kieron Andrew]

I would not want to opt out of that. How sad if everyone was simply a mirror of one another.
:yt:

[Marcie Sexton]

I agree whole heartly... but that would be in a perfect world...as we all know we don't live in a perfect world. Those that have the "power" just soon hide their heads in sand than face a true (in my opinion) medical condition...

It would solve a lot of problems for a lot of people...Acceptance is the first step...but crawling comes before walking...and "Mainstream" america simply doesn't want to accept the fact there may just be a medical reason for so many girls walking around confined in the body of a male...

[TVStevie]

Stevie, I don't believe your comparison of being TG to having a life threatening condition such as immune deficiency or congenital heart defects is valid. Being TG is not a life threatening condition. In the case of Transsexual individuals, many do opt for surgery to correct their "condition." Let me ask your same question in a slightly different way... If scientists discovered why some people were born left handed, would we treat that condition so that they would be born right handed? I'd say no. It's one of the things that give us as human beings individuals our own identity. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be TG, no matter where it may fall on the continuum, add character and flavor to society. I would not want to opt out of that. How sad if everyone was simply a mirror of one another.
From the point of view of the gene, homosexuality IS life-threatening - no reproduction of genes = the end of the genetic line. And, FWIW, I'm not suggesting that everyone be a clone - would you say that every heterosexual male was identical, because they all share the same orientation?

Your argument about adding character and flavour to society stands just the same for people with nervous tics, people with OCD, people with bulimia etc...none of those are considered life-threatening and if you've ever frequented the pro-ana forums (a disease that most definitely is life-threatening), you'll find a lot of people on there defending their life-choice to be stick-thin in much the same vein as people on here defend their life-choice to crossdress, in spite of the fact that the anorectic is potentially harming themself to a critical degree; they will argue that what it provides more than makes up for the risk of early death, and there are studies that point to anorexia being a condition that some are predisposed to, which again leads me to ask if they should just be left to get on with it, as it's one of nature's oddities?

[OldMom]

I find this threat interesting. I conceived with advanced technology (ART, ICSI) and had to take tons of hormones to sustain my pregnancy. I have often wondered if this contributed to my son's gender variance. I don't know what the future holds but I can only hope that he feels the way many of you do in that he wouldn't want himself to be any other way. At this point I would have to agree that I wouldn't want my son any other way. I love him just as he is, the stinker. He can be a handful but I think that is from his other issues (ADHD etc).

[Stephenie S]

Dear Stevie,

Gender/sexual identity are completely different. Thats the problem you will have with this. Our sexual identity is determined at birth by a visual examination. Our gender is not visually identifiable and develops independantly from our sexual identity. That's why there is such a wide range of people, from very masculine males and very feminine women to very feminine males and very masculine women. This is a human condition and does not need to be "corrected" at birth.

I certainly DO celebrate my status as a TG, and consider it a blessing. I am, perhaps on one end of the spectrum, but it's a very wide spectrum and we are all on it. Let's rejoice in our diversity and not try to be all alike.

This is a simplified answer to a complex subject. If you want to learn more about the difference between sex and gender there is a vast amount of information on the web.

Lovies,
Stephenie

And Stevie, lets ask the homosexual community whether or not they think being gay is a "life threatening" condition. Homosexuality is as old as God, and the human race is still around.

[susie evans]

i don't think i have a problem with being TG i kind of enjoy the best of both worlds :hugs:

susie

[Cai]

Your argument about adding character and flavour to society stands just the same for people with nervous tics, people with OCD, people with bulimia etc...none of those are considered life-threatening and if you've ever frequented the pro-ana forums (a disease that most definitely is life-threatening), you'll find a lot of people on there defending their life-choice to be stick-thin in much the same vein as people on here defend their life-choice to crossdress, in spite of the fact that the anorectic is potentially harming themself to a critical degree; they will argue that what it provides more than makes up for the risk of early death, and there are studies that point to anorexia being a condition that some are predisposed to, which again leads me to ask if they should just be left to get on with it, as it's one of nature's oddities?

(I hope it's okay that I answer this)
Speaking as a person with an eating disorder, who frequented those boards and met many people who were simply looking for support and love, I wouldn't have wanted it fixed if it could have been. My eating disorder is not something I would wish on my worst enemy, but it's part of me, much in the same way being TG is. Not that we shouldn't offer help to those who want it, but by changing who people are before they get a chance to live just doesn't seem right to me.

[Robin Leigh]

Homosexuality is not really life-threatening for the genes that give a propensity for being homosexual. Many homosexuals have successfully reproduced. :) And people who don't reproduce may help with the raising of their nieces & nephews, who may also carry the genes.

Homosexuality & transgenderism are not intrinsically a problem for the person. They are only a problem because of the social dimension. The only cures required are for societies' attitudes. (Of course, this is not to deny the right of TS people who want biochemical &/or surgical adjustments).

Continuing the point about being left-handed. One of my aunties was left-handed. Her teachers tried to force her to use her right hand. They didn't succeed, but she did end up a nervous wreck. :(

Left-handers do have a shorter life expectancy, and have a higher risk for certain diseases. However, there is a disproportionate number of left-handers among great artists, performers, writers & all-round geniuses. (Like Jimi Hendrix, who just started playing on my radio. :Twilight Zone: )

So what if gender & sexuality variations are caused by a "malfunction" of normal mechanisms? Consider: blue eyes, blonde hair & white skin are caused by defective pigment genes. These genes are supposed to encode for the pigment melanin, but they don't work. Should people with these defective genes be "cured" when we have the technology? :D

:hugs:

Robin

[Marla S]

I've deliberately made this separate from the other thread, although it is connected in a way.

Many of us are familiar with the theory that gender/sexual identity is defined in utero as a result of the hormones that we are exposed to. My question is this: If the hormonal imbalance was correctible, should it be? My argument in favour of this would be that we would do the same if it was any other correctible condition - babies that are born without immune systems can be given thymus transplants, for example - so why should gender/sexual identity be treated any differently? Put another way, if we had congenital heart defects that could be corrected before birth, would we be arguing that it's one of nature's quirks and, as such, should be left as-is or even celebrated?

I hope I don't upset people unnecessarily, although I've a feeling that I will. Sorry in advance - I'm just trying to guage people's opinions here.

Your arguments only do make sense if you assume that TG is a physical desease.
Even if so I doubt that it is comparable to live threatening deseases, like others have already said.

If we have to talk in terms of deseases, it is a cultural desease or a desease of the society.
Humans come in all shapes, sizes colors, and tons of highly individual features. Should we make them all uniform because of some man made traditions?


What about black people ?
Should they take a pill to get white skin, because white people don't like black people ? Black people did and still do suffer from discrimination.
Who is ill ? The black people or the society that discriminates them.



If a pill is needed it is the one for the society and some antidepressants for TGs while waiting for the pill to take effect.

[StephanieH]

:2c: As for my personal experience with this topic, here goes. I've had some health problems lately (which have improved) that led to a lot of tests. During these tests the doc informed me I had a serious "hormone deficiency". I kinda' always thought I did, but at that point, I said to myself, "well that explains a lot."

Without asking much of anything, I was quickly met by a friendly nurse with a very unfriendly shot of testosterone. In short, all I ended up with was a sore spot on my rump from the shot and I was kinda' amped up for a week or so. Then the shot wore off. The doctor recommended I get these shots once a month but I declined, telling him it made me edgy and if it wouldn't effect my health, I'd rather not have them. He said that was okay, so that was my only "booster" shot, so-to-speak.

Interestingly, however, after the shot, the desire to dress or my attraction to feminine things did not subside and I noticed no change in that department at all.

In short, I think there is a connection between our hormones and why many of us do this, but I don't know if medicine alone could do enough to change things around. And like others have said, even if it could, I don't think I would want it to. This isn't a harmful disease, and my wife likes the extra shoes she can wear. Take care and God bless! :D

[Eva Diva]

Touchy subject. Genetic testing has opened a can of worms, and there are library stacks full of books on the subject. The truth is, people are already making such decisions. There are no records being kept, but many people are being tested for conditions like Down Syndrome, and there's no doubt that many are choosing to have abortions and try again. The number of genetic tests available increases every day, and inside doctor's offices life and death decisions are being made.
Let's use me as a test case. I suffer from a condition that doesn't harm my body functions otherwise, but has had a significant effect on my life. Perfectly healthy, but dealing with issues - I ain't perfect. :D If my parents knew, should they have aborted me and tried again? The usual answer you hear is "no, in spite of my condition I've lived a good life". But there's another way to look at it. If my parents did choose an abortion and just had another kid, then I wouldn't be here to live this life. So there would have been no loss - you can't lose something that never existed. It's not like I existed before my birth, just waiting for my chance. So as far as I can see, there would have been no harm to my never having been born.
So you can reasonably say that you're happy you're a crossdresser, and wouldn't want to be "cured" before birth, but if you werecured in utero, you wouldn't know what you were missing. Sounds like no harm, no foul to me. :D
People do get very worked up about this - especially parents of children with severe disabilities. They love their children and accept them as they are. Bless 'em, they have a big burden to carry.


Then again, there's always this: you somehow "fix" your child to make sure he's not a crossdresser and he grows up to be a serial killer. Thanks loads. :eek:

[CaptLex]

Here's a thought . . . why aren't scientists trying to find out why people aren't trans, or why they're hetero? :rolleyes:

[suzy]

First, I agree with Holly!

Second, I am very contented being me....I like having both personas. I don't want to change....:D

[Marla S]

Here's a thought . . . why aren't scientists trying to find out why people aren't trans, or why they're hetero? :rolleyes:
Scientists go for the exceptions to the rules. That's their job.
Believe a chemist. Chemistry is full of exceptions and they are still searching for more. A horror for any student.

On the other side exceptions help to scrutiny and understand the rules ... it wouldn't be the frist time that the rule becomes the exception or even meaningless.

[Sheri 4242]

FIRST, I wouldn't change a thing about me!!! Like some have also said, I really LOVE both personas that are me -- I absolutely LOVE crossdressing!!!!!!! That said . . .


Many of us are familiar with the theory that gender/sexual identity is defined in utero as a result of the hormones that we are exposed to. My question is this: If the hormonal imbalance was correctible, should it be?

Sex (anatomy) is determined in the womb; gender may be influenced in the womb, but, since it isn't a life-threatening situation (compared, for example, to a heart defect), current medical practice would be to leave it alone. ALSO, the most recent medical literature is pretty firm that gender isues should be handled by support and adaptation -- IOW, nothing to be cured (thank goodness)!!! The only biological thing that has been linked with this is a certain group of cells that, in a GG are one size, and in males are another -- and in CD-TS-TG, they are, thus far, the same as size as GG's. Don't think you'll find too many doctors wanting to operate on an unborn child's brain, especially since that's all that is known -- there isn't even a hint of a clue how this happens to be!!!! And, since brain chemistry may come into play, along with cortisol plasma production and adrenal functioning, it very well is something that could never be changed by scalpel or pill.


I'd say that even if you knew for sure, which no one does, (and I personaly done care to know why)! that unless its a potential life threatening problem with the newborn... Don't mess with it... Karren

DITTO, Karren!!!!


Gender/sexual identity are completely different. Thats the problem you will have with this. Our sexual identity is determined at birth by a visual examination. Our gender is not visually identifiable and develops independantly from our sexual identity. That's why there is such a wide range of people, from very masculine males and very feminine women to very feminine males and very masculine women. This is a human condition and does not need to be "corrected" at birth.Stephenie

Great answer, Stephenie!!!!!!! I think we are on the same page, just expressing different aspects. What you said probably makes more sense than what I said (above)!!! As I was saying the other evening, there is a difference, too, in "core gender identity" and "gender role identity."

[Kate Simmons]

Here's a thought . . . why aren't scientists trying to find out why people aren't trans, or why they're hetero? :rolleyes:Good question Lex. The truth is, they are, they just don't know it. We are are way ahead of the game in that respect.:happy:

[bi_weird]

I think it comes down to how people view the 'problem' in question. I learned this from my asexual friend actually. While some people are distressed about lacking a sex drive and actively try to change it, many are perfectly happy to be this way. Thus, the prevailing opinion in the asexual community is that it does not need to be cured. I think trans issues follow a similar line. Most of us don't see it as a problem, so we see no need to cure it. People who don't understand it, they're the ones who want to cure it.
*laughs* Of course, I've been reading up on biochem a lot in preparation for grad school, and honestly I don't know if we'll ever be able to 'cure' something as complicated as gender varience.

[battybattybats]

While something doesn't have to be life threatening to be harmful lets look at this clearly and rationally.

Is it possible to live a life that is healthy, full and fulfilling while being openly TG? Yes, for some. For those that are yes, what is the functional difference between them and those who it would be no? Accepting society/culture and/or accepting partner and self acceptance. In cultures or even subcultures where this is accepted, in families where this is accepted, with partners where this is accepted, where people accept this part of themselves then there is not one iota of harm done. In those cases there is no risk at all of associated injury. There may be an increased use of resources (unless the CD buys equal or less for each gender than a proportionate share of the total they would for one) but that is all.

That yes answer positively proves that it cannot be considered an illness, a problem or harmful. It proves that it cannot be considered the same way as Anorexia or even left handedness! It proves that the problem is that the society/partners/ourselves are unaccepting and the more of us that are out, the more of us that succeed in self acceptance and the education of others the more that will change.

[MarinaTwelve200]

While being TG is not necessarily a "disease" it is an ANOMALY. Something like being born with an extra toe or finger. Not life threatening, but obviously not part of the design spec of the human body. Whether it causes problems or not is up to us.

Most of us, by now, are used to being TG and are reluctant to change, but early on in life we likely found it an "inconvenience" and possible source of embarrasment (or even a dire secret) I am sure mostof us would opt NOT to be TG early on if we could have. But being used to it and being a part of our life and personality, by NOW I think we treasure it for the most part, as a unique part of ourselves that makes us "special",-- in our own eyes anyways.

[battybattybats]

How do we know it's an anomaly? How do we not know that it isn't as normal a variation as the length of ones fingers length or ones height?

And if we grew up in a pro-TG society would we have had any of that embarrassment etc? Would it have been an inconvenience or a positive discovery celebrated by the whole family and community?

[trannie T]

The truth is that as of this time there is no cure for crossdressing.


Darn.

[Eva Diva]

The truth is that as of this time there is no cure for crossdressing.






What about pantsuits? :D

[NatalieBliss]

Of all those things you mentioned I don't think anyone would argue that they should be corrected. The child will probably die or at least have a difficult go of it.

However the argument could be made that mental health is effected by gender identity.

As far as I am concerned, after making the journey I am happy with being a crossdresser (for the most part) and would fight have a procedure done with my child.