If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?

More and more people these days think so.

Some people think that the surgery isn' t even necessary - but simply living as a woman makes a person female - despite having male genitalia.

....

IF something as quantifiable as genitalia isn't an indication of the identification of sex - how can something as ambiguous as skin coloration be an identifier of race?

Shouldn't a person have the right to self identify what race they belong to?


And those of you - who this question angers (there will be several) - explain rationally why there is a difference.

(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?

I sometimes wonder whether all the chemicals we use are messing with our hormones.  I can understand people being homosexual, but have a difficulty understanding trans people.

This is a very weird issue.

(June 4, 2019 at 12:35 pm)Alan V Wrote:

(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?

I sometimes wonder whether all the chemicals we use are messing with our hormones.  I can understand people being homosexual, but have a difficulty understanding trans people.

This is a very weird issue.

I have a hard time understanding too.  Probably because I have never had such feelings so I don't have the same information in my brain to draw from.  It certainly doesn't mean that I have an issue with someone being trans...I just don't understand it.  But then, I don't have to understand to accept.

(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?

More and more people these days think so.

Some people think that the surgery isn' t even necessary - but simply living as a woman makes a person female - despite having male genitalia.

....

IF something as quantifiable as genitalia isn't an indication of the identification of sex - how can something as ambiguous as skin coloration be an identifier of race?

Shouldn't a person have the right to self identify what race they belong to?


And those of you - who this question angers (there will be several) - explain rationally why there is a difference.

We used to be a bunch of zealously religious idiots who squabbled over land during the middle ages. If people hadn't assumed they could be something different than they "already were," then we would still take that form as a people. The Renaissance would never have occured.

But luckily, the Europeans redefined themselves.

A human being is much more than the crude designation afforded to them by their genitalia. They have hopes, aspirations, desires that transcend those things. Once you understand that, you are ripe for emerging from the dark ages.

(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: IF something as quantifiable as genitalia isn't an indication of the identification of sex - how can something as ambiguous as skin coloration be an identifier of race?

Shouldn't a person have the right to self identify what race they belong to?


And those of you - who this question angers (there will be several) - explain rationally why there is a difference.

I think this implies a trans person has a higher degree of choice in gender identity than they actually do. There are problems with the comparison with race, but I know we have trans members so maybe they should be the ones to respond before I do.

As long as you are a decent person, I couldn't give a single flying fuck how you identify yourself.

(June 4, 2019 at 11:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: If a person is born with a functional penis and testicles - then decides later in life that they are actually female - and surgically alters their body to appear that way - are they indeed female?

More and more people these days think so.

Some people think that the surgery isn' t even necessary - but simply living as a woman makes a person female - despite having male genitalia.

....

IF something as quantifiable as genitalia isn't an indication of the identification of sex - how can something as ambiguous as skin coloration be an identifier of race?

Shouldn't a person have the right to self identify what race they belong to?


And those of you - who this question angers (there will be several) - explain rationally why there is a difference.

Seems logical, I identify sexually as Onlinebiker, which I'm sure you're ok with.

Somebody should...

To answer this a bit more seriously

Rachel Dolezal identifies as black although she was born white.

How people identify is a personal matter to them, There is a reasonable argument to be made for the minimum amount of effort or minimal requirements for this stuff one puts into it to avoid things like someone looking like the brawny man using a women's restroom under the guise of "that's how I identify'.

Additionally, There are conditions that prefer genders (EG: Ostoperosis in females) and races ( African Americans have an increased risk of Coronary heart disease) that don't care how you identify.

Personally I let others be as they want and until it affects me directly or is a tangible threat I see no reason to fuss over how people live their lives.

For FSM doth spoke, "Be and let be". RAmen

The person that played The Adjudicator in "John Wick 3: Fatal Bow-wows FTW!" doesn't identify with any sex.