Shemales are just men... don't take my word for it

Yes. Indeed I have. The only way the general public will ever set these ancient drawings will be through documentaries like this one.

The paintings were made by different artists over a several hundred year period. You have to wonder what the painters felt and thought. Was it just graffiti? Was it a gallery? Was it ceremony, religion and superstition? Why did they paint only animals (with the exception of one fertility figure). Did the artist admire the work of his predecessors? Would they think it strange that their modern counterparts refrain from adding to their testimony? Would they be disappointed in us?

For me the film evoked a tide of unanswerable questions which have since ebbed, yet remain. I recommend it.

(Gotta work tomorrow so we won't hijack the thread for long...I'm off to bed. Good night runningdownthatdream. Good night HungAngels. Good night laptop. And good night Moon)

I love this girl Trish. Or woman. Or electric shadow on my cave wall. Good morning sun and frost. Good morning desktop. Wine - whine - one day maybe.

Cave of unknown descendents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes. Indeed I have. The only way the general public will ever set these ancient drawings will be through documentaries like this one.

The paintings were made by different artists over a several hundred year period. You have to wonder what the painters felt and thought. Was it just graffiti? Was it a gallery? Was it ceremony, religion and superstition? Why did they paint only animals (with the exception of one fertility figure). Did the artist admire the work of his predecessors? Would they think it strange that their modern counterparts refrain from adding to their testimony? Would they be disappointed in us?

For me the film evoked a tide of unanswerable questions which have since ebbed, yet remain. I recommend it.

(Gotta work tomorrow so we won't hijack the thread for long...I'm off to bed. Good night runningdownthatdream. Good night HungAngels. Good night laptop. And good night Moon)

---

The caves do pose questions that are unanswerable, yes, but when you look at them in conjunction with other cave discoveries such as at Lascaux, you can begin to develop a picture of the life that was being led by the people. Personally I think the paintings at Chauvet and Lascaux (despite the separation in origin date, though there is question over that) were shamanic in nature. I think groups of hunters came together at these sites in the winter to exchange and barter, to shelter from the worst weather, to socialise and to celebrate the past season's hunting and to carry out rituals that would ensure a good hunting season in the year to come. I think the paintings were part of that. (Indeed I think it is from this that we inherit the tradition of celebrating midwinter, and that it greatly predates the agrarian celebrations of spring and autumn.)

We will never know precisely how people lived in Europe durng the last Ice Age, but what should be most striking about the paintings, and the discovered art objects such as the Venus of Willendorf, is the enormous sophistication of the work. This was not 'primitive man'. These were people like us.

Anyway, better get back to letting people fight about the thread topic....:)

LOL MacShreach.... I think you are spot on regafding the probable meaning of those cave illustrations. What I have found puxxling is the creation of work deep deep in the furthest reaches of some cave systems - long walks into the most inaccessible parts of the caves. They would have to have carried or created light down there, hours inside the sytem. Why so remote? Safety? They would know also that no-one would see their work except a chosen few - led there by the creators. Primitive is surely an ill used and rather throwaway term really i. The early work of great artists is, perhaps, well described as primitive in the light of their later development. But I don't think early art - from cave paintings forward - should be described that way. Nor should the use or purpose of created art in one era trump the value of its use in another. But unlike the torrent of explanation about art once language was developed, we can ony ever surmise about its place in human affairs before language was born.
Finally though - we are the only species that makes art. Is there even any evidence of our predecessors -Neanderthal etc - having made "art."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

have you seen Cave of Forgotten Dreams yet?

---

oh god
ive tried that but his accent is just too cringeworthy for 2 hours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

LOL MacShreach.... I think you are spot on regafding the probable meaning of those cave illustrations. What I have found puxxling is the creation of work deep deep in the furthest reaches of some cave systems - long walks into the most inaccessible parts of the caves. They would have to have carried or created light down there, hours inside the sytem. Why so remote? Safety? They would know also that no-one would see their work except a chosen few - led there by the creators. Primitive is surely an ill used and rather throwaway term really i. The early work of great artists is, perhaps, well described as primitive in the light of their later development. But I don't think early art - from cave paintings forward - should be described that way. Nor should the use or purpose of created art in one era trump the value of its use in another. But unlike the torrent of explanation about art once language was developed, we can ony ever surmise about its place in human affairs before language was born.
Finally though - we are the only species that makes art. Is there even any evidence of our predecessors -Neanderthal etc - having made "art."

---

I think the cave represents the womb of the Earth Mother. We have thousands of artefacts from this era (admitttedly it was a very long era) which strongly suggest that the Mother was the principle deity, possibly the only one. We also have found, in France, cave entrances which are vulva-shaped, but which have also been daubed with ochre. (Menstrual blood being taboo is a Judeo-Christian thing--we know that it was celebrated in Goddess cultures.) So I think that these caves were a kind of temple, a metaphorical womb deep within the earth, within the body of the Mother herself, where (and this is my opinion because it can't be proved) a priesthood of probably female shamans honoured the animals who had been killed to feed the tribe by painting their images, and carried out rituals to ensure the success of the next season. Again it's my opinion that men would not have been allowed into the inner spaces of the cave/temple, and that the votive paintings and the ceremony surrounding them, were kept secret. Although there are many examples of a male shaman caste, there are also many of female ones and this, with the very widespread evidence for Goddess worship is what inclines me to this view.

Part of the problem with your second question is that we really don't know who made the paleolithic art we have discovered. It has always been attributed to modern humans but I think most people would be hard put to come up with any real evidence of that, other than that much of the work, to my eye at least, has a definitively 'human' feel. I know that someone like me could have made these things.

Also, it's often forgotten that the Stone Age was just as much the Wood Age, and we have lost by far the greater part of all the artefacts that once existed because wood is not durable. Because of this there isn't really enough material to discern the likely stylistic differences that there would be between modern human and Neanderthal art. All I can say is 'what I would give for a time machine'.

I entirely agree with you about the notions of 'primitive' and so on; these are part of a mindset prevalent up till the late 20th century when it was assumed that modern European people were more 'advanced' than anyone else, and that cultural history was a long hill that we had climbed up, so that we could look down on others. And that was the same mindset that gave us colonialism and the slave trade. Modern science has absolutely proved that we are not more 'advanced' in the way that this holds, either over people who came before us or people who live somewhere else...unfortunately however, there are some who still cling to those outdated ideas.

There's nothing even slightly unsophisticated in the drawing, for example, of the cave paintings; these artists were really good at what they did, they had practised and they had looked at nature and understood its shapes and forms. Their line is fluid yet definitive, economical yet lyrical. They were trained.

I'm pretty sure language had been developed a long time before these cave paintings, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes. Indeed I have. The only way the general public will ever set these ancient drawings will be through documentaries like this one.

The paintings were made by different artists over a several hundred year period. You have to wonder what the painters felt and thought. Was it just graffiti? Was it a gallery? Was it ceremony, religion and superstition? Why did they paint only animals (with the exception of one fertility figure). Did the artist admire the work of his predecessors? Would they think it strange that their modern counterparts refrain from adding to their testimony? Would they be disappointed in us?

For me the film evoked a tide of unanswerable questions which have since ebbed, yet remain. I recommend it.

(Gotta work tomorrow so we won't hijack the thread for long...I'm off to bed. Good night runningdownthatdream. Good night HungAngels. Good night laptop. And good night Moon)

---

.........speculation is that the paintings were done thousands of years apart with the earliest being around 24,000 BC. Whatever their purpose, they are stunning and inspired more primal feelings in me than anything else I've seen before. Made me feel sad too.......while we live longer lives they have become more complicated and too, I feel our 'lives' have been subsumed by material wants.........goodnight Moon should have far more mystical connotations for us than it does :)

Home Work: compare and contrast the Cave of Forgotten Dreams with http://www.vatican.va/various/cappel..._vr/index.html

Wednesday morning (a day before we got into this conversation) I was almost late to lecture gawking at this link (thinking deep thoughts like "Wow! This is incredible!"). Now I'm reminded of it again. Complexity vs Simplicity ( a theme to which MacShreach alludes ) comes to mind. Both may or may not be religious, but the earlier work seems positively innocent by comparison. The obsessions within the Christian work now strike me almost sick!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Home Work: compare and contrast the Cave of Forgotten Dreams with http://www.vatican.va/various/cappel..._vr/index.html

Wednesday morning (a day before we got into this conversation) I was almost late to lecture gawking at this link (thinking deep thoughts like "Wow! This is incredible!"). Now I'm reminded of it again. Complexity vs Simplicity ( a theme to which MacShreach alludes ) comes to mind. Both may or may not be religious, but the earlier work seems positively innocent by comparison. The obsessions within the Christian work now strike me almost sick!?

---

Innocent, simple but more evocative IMO. Later religious art was inspired by religion seeking to control man rather whereas more primitive religion paid homage to a deity in the hopes that deity would influence the natural elements. Later religion had to become more convoluted and so its images, iconography had to become more so to better confuse and discombobulate!

.................again just my opinion :)

i think were missing the much simpler expanation that those were drawn by a kid that probably got into a lot of toruble for paiting the walls of his room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Home Work: compare and contrast the Cave of Forgotten Dreams with http://www.vatican.va/various/cappel..._vr/index.html

Wednesday morning (a day before we got into this conversation) I was almost late to lecture gawking at this link (thinking deep thoughts like "Wow! This is incredible!"). Now I'm reminded of it again. Complexity vs Simplicity ( a theme to which MacShreach alludes ) comes to mind. Both may or may not be religious, but the earlier work seems positively innocent by comparison. The obsessions within the Christian work now strike me almost sick!?

---

Oh Trish, there's a big one...Complexity and simplicity...I think great art is always both, to be honest. Certainly in the Chauvet caves, there is one famous picture of four horses, which is very complex in its composition, yet simple in its allure...again, you could look at sculpture by Brancusi or Jean Arp and see them as simple but when you spend time with them you begin to realise just how complex and sophisticated they really are. I have always said that 'technique should be invisible.' You should be amazed by the art, not by how clever the artist was...though of course, in the best work, the artists are very clever indeed. These cave paintings, by any measure, are great art, but every period has had great art.

As for Christian art, if you mean Christian religious art, you really have to speak of Catholic art, because there is so little in the Protestant traditions. Because you were referencing the Sistine, I think you were probably thinking of post-Renaissance art, which was characterised, up until the mid 19th century, by the pursuit of naturalistic representation. Photography liberated painters from this, which is one of the reasons we see the huge stylistic changes that led to contemporary art, and sometimes, to our photographically-conditioned eyes, the post-Renaissance work can seem tight and excessively formal.

All I can say, without getting into a really detailed discussion, (which I would be happy to do later but I don't have time right now...you know how much I like talking with you,Trish) is that sometimes you have to see beyond the image and try to understand the underlying metaphor. Obviously (I hope) the Goddess is central to Catholic art, certainly in Europe, but there's a lot more in there.

Complexity V simplicity in art. A lot of the seemingly simple contemporary (or rather modern) art seems simple because the artists have learned and gone through complexity. The idea, offered in simple form, is complex if examined properly. But what MacShreach alludes to is a relatively modern idea (at the time). Contrast the pure force of Arp or Brancusi or Moore with the baroque or the roccoco. It certainly suits our contemporary emotional and aesthetic needs better. But the idea of "progress" - the "sophisticated present" versus the "relatively primitive pst" - i think we all agree is not one that is really intellectually acceptable right now.

1) From a practical angle, painting in caves preserves the images which would fade in the light of day, no mystery there; archaeological theory has merged with cultural theory to argue that cave paintings are the first example of Homo Symbolicus -humans thinking and expressing themselves in symbols -a connection is then made to the Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt where Gods take animal form -in North America, in Canada I think, they found that the one animal that was not depicted -the Reindeer- was the one they ate the most.

2) The differentiation of non-human things: beads, artefacts, animals -may represent once insular communities making contact with others, and attaching a sense of identity to things to say: this is mine, not yours. And yet, evolution has relied upon knowledge transfer, and we cannot be sure we are talking about things as being conceived of as private property -but then people do assume that early societies practised a form of what Marx called Primitive Communism, but then the procesional theory of social development was discredited long ago. So it becomes part of the concept of an acquisitive social milieu, what Andre Gunder Frank once characterised as being the fundemental propulsion of human society since the outset: the cumulation of accumulation.

3) It is not true that the phobia of menstrual blood is solely Judeo-Christian, Gilbert Herdt's pioneering/controversial work on Papua New Guinea argues that the segregation of male-female spaces is generated in part by phobias about bodily smells and liquids, in which white= positive (semen, breast milk) and red= negative (menstrual blood, blood shed in anger or violence).

4) There is plenty of non-Catholic art, vide the Ikons of Russia and Greece; dare I mention Rembrandt, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Hans Holbein, or Caspar David Friedrich, who, after the glories of renaissance Spain and Italy, produced the most magnificent religious paintings?

But I have no deep undersanding of what cave paintings are or what they mean, but concur with the consensus they must be part of some early religion/cosmology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

1) From a practical angle, painting in caves preserves the images which would fade in the light of day, no mystery there; archaeological theory has merged with cultural theory to argue that cave paintings are the first example of Homo Symbolicus -humans thinking and expressing themselves in symbols -a connection is then made to the Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt where Gods take animal form -in North America, in Canada I think, they found that the one animal that was not depicted -the Reindeer- was the one they ate the most.

2) The differentiation of non-human things: beads, artefacts, animals -may represent once insular communities making contact with others, and attaching a sense of identity to things to say: this is mine, not yours. And yet, evolution has relied upon knowledge transfer, and we cannot be sure we are talking about things as being conceived of as private property -but then people do assume that early societies practised a form of what Marx called Primitive Communism, but then the procesional theory of social development was discredited long ago. So it becomes part of the concept of an acquisitive social milieu, what Andre Gunder Frank once characterised as being the fundemental propulsion of human society since the outset: the cumulation of accumulation.

3) It is not true that the phobia of menstrual blood is solely Judeo-Christian, Gilbert Herdt's pioneering/controversial work on Papua New Guinea argues that the segregation of male-female spaces is generated in part by phobias about bodily smells and liquids, in which white= positive (semen, breast milk) and red= negative (menstrual blood, blood shed in anger or violence).

4) There is plenty of non-Catholic art, vide the Ikons of Russia and Greece; dare I mention Rembrandt, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Hans Holbein, or Caspar David Friedrich, who, after the glories of renaissance Spain and Italy, produced the most magnificent religious paintings?

But I have no deep undersanding of what cave paintings are or what they mean, but concur with the consensus they must be part of some early religion/cosmology.

---

While it is true that darkness would prevent the images fading, I would still conjecture that the caves were chosen for symbolical or shamanic reasons. Of course it is possible that the outside rock was also painted but that these have been lost through weathering; but if that were the case, why go to the trouble of going deep inside the earth to do it? In addition, the charcoal and earth pigments that were used would have lasted many decades without fading from sunlight, again suggesting that the deep caves were used for another reason. Further, there are references to caves as analagous to the womb of the Earth Mother in many early mythologies; Mithras, for example, was born from a cave. I will hold to my contention there; I did say it was an opinion, and one that can't be strictly proved, but it has plausibility.

I'm not at all convinced about the idea of the 'cumulation of accummulation' being a strong motivator in these early societies, but there is not enough evidence in either direction to argue the case. What we can say is that the accummulation of wealth became a major social impetus with the arrival of city-based culture, with its shift towards patriarchy and patriarchal religion, and of course, warfare.

I don't remember saying that menstrual blood was solely a Judeo-Christian taboo, but if I did I stand corrected; there are plenty of other cultures where it is also reviled. However we do know that the so called pagan culture that predated Christianity in Europe and elsewhere did not share this taboo, and its rise appears to be a part of a more generalised misogyny which developed in the Abrahamic monotheisms.

There is of course plenty of Iconic art from the Orthodox areas, but it cannot be said to have experienced the development that was obvious in Western European art after the Renaissance. Perhaps I should have made it clear that was what I was talking about, but since the conversation began with Michelangelo, I did not think that was necessary.

As for the illustrious artists you mention, Holbein and Cranach were both born into Catholic traditions and produced much work for Catholic patrons, and C D Friedrich is a noted exception to the Protestant tradition. Of all of them, Rembrandt van Rijn, whose father was Catholic, was the most difficult to categorise, with many different styles during his long career. His depiction of religious scenes differs very greatly from the work of, say Michelangelo, which is where we began, sort of. Rembrandt painted illustrations of Biblical scenes, but also used many other classical sources. I think there is a difference between this use of Biblical and Classical sources, and the use of similar sources by many Catholic artists when working in a religious context, in that Rembrandt's work, even when referring to Biblical sources, is essentially secular, (something that he shares with many Catholic artists, of course; it is absolutely not the case that all art by Catholic artists has been Catholic religious art, far from it.)

I think it's misleading to suggest that because art has its source in a Biblical story, that it is necessarily religious art; if that were the case then we would have to categorise all of the post-Renaissance art that used classical sources as religious, since the root story was a part of a religious tradition (albeit one no longer practised.) But these paintings have no devotional purpose and so are not really religious per se. We cannot say that because an artist was Catholic or Protestant, that his or her art is necessarily Catholic or Protestant in a religious sense or context.

I therefore stand my ground; in comparison to the vast amount of Catholic religious art in the post-Renaissance period, there is very little comparable Protestant art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Changing the subject completely but inspired by your dancing cave shadows.....have you seen Cave of Forgotten Dreams yet?

---

Wonder if Dino has seen this? He's a big fan of of the Herzog-Kinski collaborations, but then Herzog is a bit eclectic so perhaps Dino isn't a fan of his entire body of work.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation. Got it saved in my Neflix streaming queue.

Amused at what people looking at this thread for the first time and reading the discussion on the meaning of cave art will make of it.

Oh - and shemales are not just men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Amused at what people looking at this thread for the first time and reading the discussion on the meaning of cave art will make of it.

Oh - and shemales are not just men.

---

Yeah I was enjoying that. Seemed like a positive hijack!

Seconded on the on-topic part.


And just to be OT again...

It happens that I was in one of the lesser but still magnificent French cathedrals today. Often people forget that when they were new, they were not bare stone, but painted throughout, and there is still some of the original paintwork preserved in this one....what they must have been like! Awe-inspiring. But that was the point of course; to enter the womb of the Goddess herself and be...overwhelmed. There's a line of connection between these and the caves, without any doubt in my mind.

Think you are correct on that MacShreach. People also forget that the greek statues were also painted. The classical revival has given s the idea of pure white marble.
Which cathedral? I confess that my favourite remains Chartres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Think you are correct on that MacShreach. People also forget that the greek statues were also painted. The classical revival has given s the idea of pure white marble.
Which cathedral? I confess that my favourite remains Chartres.

---

Chartres is fantastic but it's a long way away. I was at St Vincent in Chalon-sur-Saone. The facade is neoclassical but parts of the interior are 8th century.

read "whipping girl" by julia serano... wish i could tell Elly too but I don't know how to talk to her ~ it helped clear lots of my confusion over my inherit knowledge that yes i am a boy, but i really wanna be a girl ~ Julia is smart, she helped me come out :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amberskyi

the same we "these people" are being so deeply defensive is the same way your being so deeply aggressive about your point of view.
the SCIENTIFIC answer to this question is while we are not biological woman we arent biological men either.
hormones do alot more than just give us boobs and pretty skin.it actually changes alot of ways very crucial internal organs function and look.over time our bodies and organs strive to function as much as a females as possible.tgirls have different sized brains than men (even before hormones),hearts functions differently,prostate shrinks,bladder shrinks,hips end up rotating forward,change in eyes shape,bone density changes,certain sweat glands become in active, and etc
so yes your right we arent biological women but we arent men either..when was the last time you got a mammogram..something you as a man will never really have to worry about but already my doctor does breast exams on me and the pleasure that is a mammogram lies waiting in my future...

---

Interesting...I'll have to look this up. Never heard of that before. Anyways, while she is right that, genetically, transwomen can never be biological women, that doesn't mean that they are not women nonetheless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amberskyi

the same we "these people" are being so deeply defensive is the same way your being so deeply aggressive about your point of view.
the SCIENTIFIC answer to this question is while we are not biological woman we arent biological men either.
hormones do alot more than just give us boobs and pretty skin.it actually changes alot of ways very crucial internal organs function and look.over time our bodies and organs strive to function as much as a females as possible.tgirls have different sized brains than men (even before hormones),hearts functions differently,prostate shrinks,bladder shrinks,hips end up rotating forward,change in eyes shape,bone density changes,certain sweat glands become in active, and etc
so yes your right we arent biological women but we arent men either..when was the last time you got a mammogram..something you as a man will never really have to worry about but already my doctor does breast exams on me and the pleasure that is a mammogram lies waiting in my future...

---

Everything you said about organs shrinking is correct. But there is no difference in function of organs in men or women. In fact, they are all 100% compatible for transplant into the opposite sex. The only requirement of compatibillity is blood type. Even though the organs shrink, their genitic makeup remains the same. When I see you, I see a lovely woman. And I will treat you as a woman because that is who you are. A TS's identity and psychological makeup is 100% a woman's. But if we took a blood sample from you and did a DNA check, it would still say you are a genitic male. There is no arguing with this as it is a fact.

But once again as this has been discussed to death so many times, it is not important. It is just a mere difference between psychology and biology. For all intent and purposes, TS ARE WOMEN, and deserve all of the respect to their identity as would be afforded to any GG. Anyone who doesn't see you as a woman is blind and stupid. That's the only important part to remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ineeda SM

Everything you said about organs shrinking is correct. But there is no difference in function of organs in men or women. In fact, they are all 100% compatible for transplant into the opposite sex. The only requirement of compatibillity is blood type. Even though the organs shrink, their genitic makeup remains the same. When I see you, I see a lovely woman. And I will treat you as a woman because that is who you are. A TS's identity and psychological makeup is 100% a woman's. But if we took a blood sample from you and did a DNA check, it would still say you are a genitic male. There is no arguing with this as it is a fact.

But once again as this has been discussed to death so many times, it is not important. It is just a mere difference between psychology and biology. For all intent and purposes, TS ARE WOMEN, and deserve all of the respect to their identity as would be afforded to any GG. Anyone who doesn't see you as a woman is blind and stupid. That's the only important part to remember.

---

actually there was a study that showed that not only did our brains change in size but also in the way it functions...any way to be honest im getting a bit tired of being on these fucking forums that just want to beat into our head s that we're males....
im just going to get a vag and pretend that everything before was a bad dream

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amberskyi

actually there was a study that showed that not only did our brains change in size but also in the way it functions...any way to be honest im getting a bit tired of being on these fucking forums that just want to beat into our head s that we're males....
im just going to get a vag and pretend that everything before was a bad dream

---

Anber, don't look at it that way. Yes there are some assholes that call you a man just to rag on you and start arguments. I sincerely hope you don't think that was my intention. I have a TS girlfriend that I love dearly. I certainly could never see her as a man any more than I could see most of the girls as men, including yourself. My respect and defense for the total female identity is sincere.

Let me put it this way, and my TS GF agrees. As I said, anyone who doesn't see you as a woman is blind and stupid. But the video in the OP was not technically lying. She was speaking in forensic terms of biology. It was probably stupid for her to say that TS are men, because the context will be distorted by those who just want to rag on TS. But then again, this is an open porn forum with no censorship and it will attract that type every time. If everyone (Including myself) would just stay away from threads like this, this problem would not be that big of a deal.

Stay cute Amber.

her post just underlines the fact that gender is many variants, even though people are BORN as either male or female, how they FEEL or want to PRESENT has indefinitely many shades ... and there are as many opinions as there are people ... nobody is wrong or right, to each their own

The universe makes no mistakes... out of 7 billion people, there is bound to be some variety within human expression, as is in all nature, everything has unique expression, not ever once has there been two exact snowflakes, and as complex and complicated as human beings are, there is bound to be all types and forms of expression especially in the gender spectrum, i think of it akin to a bell curve of sorts, the lgbt more on the shallower ends, but a part of nature with every right to live and enjoy freedoms as the rest. We silly humans make the divisions, the classifications, the labels...it's a waste of time and effort, at least that's how i see it. i hope someday in the future there won't be a LGBT alliance, in the respects that we won't need it anymore, that we won't have categories, just people, with varieties to be celebrated, not hated... :D and by celebration, i mean :salad:fuckin::jerkoff

Biologically, based on her reproductive organs at birth she is and will be male; but, she has definitely changed her gender! She's transforming herself into the feminine gender. You can't change the factual circumstances of your birth but you sure as hell can change your gender!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biberkopf

Biologically, based on her reproductive organs at birth she is and will be male; but, she has definitely changed her gender! She's transforming herself into the feminine gender. You can't change the factual circumstances of your birth but you sure as hell can change your gender!

---

No they are changing their sex... Ts have always been women by gender, born male by sex... Sex is genital and secondary characteristic influenced... Big difference... That is they do change their sex, but they never changed gender...

FYI DNA and chromosomes biologically are imperfect, imperfection is normal, many sex born women have been proven to carry male chromosomes or even test male by blood sample but carry every female reproductive organ.... Stop being so ignorant people, test a true transexuals woman's blood there are its bound to be just xy chromosomes most likely, The world is not black and white. Millions of people around the world have defects of any type from blood, mental, genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc the is why people like us exist because there is something going on in our bodies that you do not know about...

If someone was born with 6 fingers, is it wrong to cut the extra off just to fit in what your suppose to be?
If you have cancer is it wrong to go under radiation just because its not normal and was scientifically made?
Are you suppose to just let a tumor grow? No we treat it, that is why biology also has science.

We ts woman change our sex because it's not right we have an abnormality! Get it? got it? good...

There are lots of cases of being intersexed. ISM won't really acknowledge them tho'. He gets upset if you stray from the traditional 'either/or' way of thinking about this stuff. lol I mean I do accept that I'm not a GG, but I was told that a karyotype test would probably reveal that I'm intersexed. I got little tits when I went through puberty, although I wasn't fat. I had no hair on my body and only a little peach fuzz on my face. My voice was always kinda high pitched too until I smoked. And my hormone levels were pretty screwed up before HRT. That's a fact. That's what made them think I was probably intersexed. My dick functioned, but I had very little testo; well below average. Tula was born that way too, and so was Heavenly Sin. It's called Klinefelter's syndrome. The karyotype tests are expensive tho'. I never cared that much or felt I needed to prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

No they are changing their sex... Ts have always been women by gender, born male by sex... Sex is genital and secondary characteristic influenced... Big difference... That is they do change their sex, but they never changed gender...

FYI DNA and chromosomes biologically are imperfect, imperfection is normal, many sex born women have been proven to carry male chromosomes or even test male by blood sample but carry every female reproductive organ.... Stop being so ignorant people, test a true transexuals woman's blood there are its bound to be just xy chromosomes most likely, The world is not black and white. Millions of people around the world have defects of any type from blood, mental, genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc the is why people like us exist because there is something going on in our bodies that you do not know about...

If someone was born with 6 fingers, is it wrong to cut the extra off just to fit in what your suppose to be?
If you have cancer is it wrong to go under radiation just because its not normal and was scientifically made?
Are you suppose to just let a tumor grow? No we treat it, that is why biology also has science.

We ts woman change our sex because it's not right we have an abnormality! Get it? got it? good...

---

Sorry to come off sounding ignorant, but I don't think I am. Physically, she has changed her gender, although mentally she hasn't. Genitalia is considered the primary sexual characteristic. All the other stuff that hits during puberty - in the case of a woman, breasts, differences in facial shape, wider hips, etc - those are secondary sexual characteristics. I looked at the video and she's calling herself a guy and I'm thinking, no you're not. What's her chromosomal make up? Who knows? I don't think it matters. I think the words sex and gender lead to confusion when they are used interchangeably, because as transgendered people show, the two things can be separated.

I am not a man , but I have a wiener

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biberkopf

Sorry to come off sounding ignorant, but I don't think I am. Physically, she has changed her gender, although mentally she hasn't. Genitalia is considered the primary sexual characteristic. All the other stuff that hits during puberty - in the case of a woman, breasts, differences in facial shape, wider hips, etc - those are secondary sexual characteristics. I looked at the video and she's calling herself a guy and I'm thinking, no you're not. What's her chromosomal make up? Who knows? I don't think it matters. I think the words sex and gender lead to confusion when they are used interchangeably, because as transgendered people show, the two things can be separated.

---

I changed my sex... Transgeder is the umbrella, I consider and know I am a woman and changed my sex... Transgender is the wide spectrum, but transexual are very different... The title of this thread is ignorant in the first place, nobody calls a transexual or transgender a she-male unless it is used derogatory in porn... If a man would call me a ladyboy, she-male, etc I would take of my christian loubuitins and knock your ass out! its highly offensive!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EvonRose

No they are changing their sex... Ts have always been women by gender, born male by sex... Sex is genital and secondary characteristic influenced... Big difference... That is they do change their sex, but they never changed gender...

FYI DNA and chromosomes biologically are imperfect, imperfection is normal, many sex born women have been proven to carry male chromosomes or even test male by blood sample but carry every female reproductive organ.... Stop being so ignorant people, test a true transexuals woman's blood there are its bound to be just xy chromosomes most likely, The world is not black and white. Millions of people around the world have defects of any type from blood, mental, genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc the is why people like us exist because there is something going on in our bodies that you do not know about...

If someone was born with 6 fingers, is it wrong to cut the extra off just to fit in what your suppose to be?
If you have cancer is it wrong to go under radiation just because its not normal and was scientifically made?
Are you suppose to just let a tumor grow? No we treat it, that is why biology also has science.

We ts woman change our sex because it's not right we have an abnormality! Get it? got it? good...

---

This is a very complex and multifaceted issue.

Up to 1 in 20,000 women actually have a 46,XY karyotype (i.e., male). This occurs in the setting of androgen insensitivity syndrome (the receptor for testosterone does not work, so despite high levels of testosterone, it cannot exert an effect on the body). So, a penis does not form during development. However, the testes still produce other compounds such as Mullerian inhibiting factor, which prevents the higher female urogenital tract, including the uterus, from forming. Overall, they tend to be tall (due to a Y chromosome effect), have very little body hair (due to an inability of testosterone to exert its effect), have a normal lower vagina, have undescended testes, have normal to large breasts (still have estrogen production by the testes which promotes this, but no androgen effect which would block this). From a mental standpoint, they usually identify as women and have a "female-type" brain.

Transgender conditions are poorly understood. They are very likely heterogenous and likely involve some hormonal based effects as well as some psychological effects... e.g., early life androgen exposure, function of the androgen receptor, etc. Studies have shown some differences in brain structures as well. Overall, what mainly counts is how the individual feels and how he or she identifies with a particular gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tobe

This is a very complex and multifaceted issue.

Up to 1 in 20,000 women actually have a 46,XY karyotype (i.e., male). This occurs in the setting of androgen insensitivity syndrome (the receptor for testosterone does not work, so despite high levels of testosterone, it cannot exert an effect on the body). So, a penis does not form during development. However, the testes still produce other compounds such as Mullerian inhibiting factor, which prevents the higher female urogenital tract, including the uterus, from forming. Overall, they tend to be tall (due to a Y chromosome effect), have very little body hair (due to an inability of testosterone to exert its effect), have a normal lower vagina, have undescended testes, have normal to large breasts (still have estrogen production by the testes which promotes this, but no androgen effect which would block this). From a mental standpoint, they usually identify as women and have a "female-type" brain.

Transgender conditions are poorly understood. They are very likely heterogenous and likely involve some hormonal based effects as well as some psychological effects... e.g., early life androgen exposure, function of the androgen receptor, etc. Studies have shown some differences in brain structures as well. Overall, what mainly counts is how the individual feels and how he or she identifies with a particular gender.

---

The ts population in the world is very small, not as much as one may think...Chromosomes imbalance is one example, another to get complicated are hermaphrodites when there is an extra genitalia part belonging to another sex, usually they change the gender to the dominant genitals, yet there have been studies that the same person didn't feel like the gender they were assigned... the brain says one thing the body states another... You can't get brain transplant or you will die, the only solution is to undergo hrt and surgery. I have a female brain, but the genitals i am born with is not what I am assigned to be, so the only cure is hrt and surgery if need... I'ts not a complicated thing, but you complicate things when you say were men...

Evon, your problem is that you have an extra chromosome. You silly little retard.

"You can't get a brain transplant or you will die..."
Really? I didn't know brain transplants weren't possible. Are you sure?

You're an idiot regardless if you identify yourself as a man or woman.

You misspelled Ignatius and you missed the middle initial. And based on your repeated actions, you missed the main point of the book.

Fat and slovenly as well, I bet. Live with your mom still, berating her all the while?

You are a one-man Confederacy of Dunces.

Seriously, dude- what kind of damage have you suffered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MdR Dave

You misspelled Ignatius and you missed the middle initial. And based on your repeated actions, you missed the main point of the book.

Fat and slovenly as well, I bet. Live with your mom still, berating her all the while?

You are a one-man Confederacy of Dunces.

Seriously, dude- what kind of damage have you suffered?

---

Ah...somebody already had Ignatius as their username, so I switched the i and u around. And, Mister Reilly was quite fond of lambasting contemporary entertainment—remember his trips to the movie house and his critique of the teen dancing program? Furthermore, he was also homophobic.

I'm not, nor have I ever been, a homophobe, and I'm not a fat Don Quixote type, who is overeducated, and still lives with his mom.

But you seem to be no more then just an angry sockpuppet. Who's hand is up your behind?

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

Just kidding I'm no genius, but my detractors tend to be booger eating spazzes!
And, in all reality, I'm only berating a pseudo intellectual that is under the impression they are smart (Evon).

The genderID in my brain is that of a female and this was the case from the moment I was born...
Inside I am a very typical female... If my body would have been correct, I would have been married now and had children and there would be nothing unusual about me.

But since my body developed the wrong way in the womb... I have become a puppeteer.... I do not identify with my body but I live with it (and sometimes around it), and live with the social and sexual conscequences, I changed it, but it will never be perfect and all my friends, family and lovers will have to deal with the fact that I am TS.

Therefor a potential lover will have to love 3 instead of one. The woman I am on the inside... The TS I am on the outside... and the fact that I was born in the body of a boy and was socialised as one in my childhood years.

I can understand Ellery, I also feel that I can never become a woman in this life... (I already was one) and that I have to deal with the fact that I have the body of a male (at least in part).

Also it helps me to identify as a boy, because when it comes down to it... its a matter of faith for other people to believe in your excistence or not... By identifying as male I protect myself from harm, coz its something no one can debate about coz that's a fact.

I dont see why I should let other people mess with the most precious part of every human beeing, the soul. If they dont respect it... sure, I will be a male for you.

A lot of guys and tlovers truely believe we are men... and you try a few times but after a while you just stop defending yourself.
you are not sharing my bed.