sissymaidlola
Posts: 480
Joined: 3/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your mini-treatise on sissyhood notwithstanding, you're missing the point. Gender doesn't change, no matter what is done to the body and no matter what the reason for said physical alteration is.
Hi, stef,
No one is missing the point here because no one on this thread has claimed that castration changes gender. Without putting words into Sissyslave71's mouth, sissy believes that what he meant with his comment was that unless one was a M2F transsexual (TS) male committed to going through with the complete set of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) procedures and associated paperwork trail to change one's legal gender status to be consistent with one's newly modified physical body and social presentation, castration (which is just one of the SRS procedures) as a form of BDSM play appears to be very extreme. And it is. You can indeed interpret what Sissyslave71 said as implying that he believes castration, by itself, changes gender ... but that is just one possible interpretation (and, sissy would argue, an unfairly excessive one on your behalf) out of many possible interpretations of a very short post. And only Sissyslave71 himself can put that issue to bed.
In arguing that gender cannot be changed by body modifications alone (such as castration and penectomy) you are correct ... physical body attributes represent just one of at least five aspects that constitute human gender. These are:
(1) Biological Gender - determined by one's chromosomes (XY for males, XX for females, and other relatively rare combinations, such as XXY or XYY, for intersexed individuals, or both XY and XX for hermaphrodite individuals).
(2) Mental Gender - how one truly thinks of oneself (TV/TG/TS think of themselves as being female some or all of the time ... that's why they are transgendered).
(3) Physical Gender - bodily attributes such as genitalia and breasts, but also secondary indicators such as body hair, Adams apples, etc. all contribute to the identification of the male versus female.
(4) Social Gender - how one presents to the public or close friends and associates in a social context (transgendered males that wear female clothing and makeup 24/7 and take female hormones, etc. are to all intents and purposes female by this criterion).
(5) Legal Gender - what they put on your birth certificate at birth (and later on your driving license as your main legal identification).
One's gender is determined by all five aspects taken together, NOT any one of them taken in isolation. For most non-transgendered folks all five aspects align and there never is an issue. For the transgendered male or female, attribute (2) is the opposite of what it should be to some extent ... either all of the time (the TS/TG) or just some of the time (the male TV ... is there a female equivalent ?). Attributes (1) and (2) CANNOT be changed and there are some pedants that would argue that gender is only defined by one's chromosomes and so no one can change their gender.
If that is your position in arguing that gender cannot be changed by body modifications it is completely untenable. We have only undetstood about the biological aspects of gender in the last century or so ... human gender has existed throughout the history of mankind and wasn't invented with the advent of modern medical science. Elizabethans knew nothing of hormones, chromosomes or DNA but they could tell a male from a female. The biological aspect of gender is the least important of all five aspects since we cannot see each other's chromosomes. Additionally, if it was so important, there would be more than two human genders because Mother Nature creates intersexed humans that don't fit the socially created dichotomy.
Another indication that aspects (2) and (4) - mental gender and social gender - are the most important determinants of how we present, perceive and react to gender in human society is the male transvestite. There is not a female equivalent. That does NOT mean that there are not females that totally crossdress (such as the butch dyke image ... or even Joan of Arc) but society does NOT get anywhere near as bent out of shape at the concept of a "female in trousers" (e.g., Marlene Dietrich) as it does at the concept of a "man in a dress."
That is because many of the attributes that are associated with the male gender are primarily socially constructed. Which accounts for why as few as the number of transgendered folks exist (about 1% - 3% of the population we are told) they are predominantly (>90%) male. These males are at odds with the social construction of their gender ... the behavior that comes naturally to them based primarily on the mental aspect of their gender does not easily align with the socially constructed norms to which they are meant to conform. Which is why you will also hear some folks argue that gender is entirely mental. That also is wrong, but it is less incorrect than arguing that the biological aspects are the sole determinant of gender.
A fully post-op transsexual (M2F TS) female (i.e., a male that has changed his gender by altering aspects (3) through (5) to align with his female mental gender) is legally and socially a woman in most western societies. They represent a very small percentage of the human population, and even a small percentage of the transgendered male population. But they do exist. Similarly, fully post-op transsexual (F2M TS) males also exist but they are even fewer in number again - in a ratio of about 1 in 20 (?) [don't quote sissy on that].
So human gender can be changed, and to argue otherwise runs contrary to the facts. Those that argue that position can only do so by picking and choosing which aspects of human gender are important to their case (and conveniently ignoring all of the other aspects). It is the same sort of self-serving argument as a president that is being impeached claiming that fellatio is not really adulterous sex. The lawyers may buy into those semantics but the rest of us that have given and/or received head know better.
Note that sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with gender identity. That distinction didn't really become clear to so-called medical and psychological experts until around the 1950s (possibly as late as the 1960s). sissy Believes that it was Virginia Prince that was primarily responsible for drawing out that distinction (but again, don't quote him on that). Prior to then, most people would have argued that sexual orientation was a sixth defining aspect of human gender, and there are those today that still hold that viewpoint. But then again, there are also those out there that still contend the earth is flat and that you can catch VD from toilet seats. It takes all sorts. Sheesh, sissy has written a treatise on gender here. Are you happy, now ?
Respectfrilly yours,
sissy maid lola
[edited correction added on 3/17/05] Amongst many other achievements, Virginia Prince is probably best known because she totally repudiated SRS in favor of her own non-surgical status as a transgendered woman, and is the person usually credited with introducing the terms transgender and transgenderist to the social debate and understanding of human gender sometime during the 1980s. The person that sissy was thinking of when he mentioned her above was, of course, Dr. Harry Benjamin.
Thumbnail Image
< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 4/26/2005 6:24:15 PM >
_____________________________
If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.
|
Sissy Maid Poll #1 - 
Sissy Maid Poll #1 
Profile
RE: Sissy Maid Poll #1 - 
Hi, sis, thank you for voting in sissy's poll (well sissy is assuming you voted in his poll ... but he has no way of telling if you did) and posting your comment. sissy Will do his best to address it. 
If you are issuing any kind of conditions then you are NOT a slave by definition ... slaves don't determine their own conditions ! Admittedly, if someone is into "occasional chastity confinement" then it is not unreasonable for that person to list an interest in "chastity belts" ... but "chastity piercings" - now that's another thing entirely. To this sissy, "chastity piercing" implies something much more extreme than sissy's option (a) and something that is much more painful than option (b) ... the very term makes sissy cross his legs whenever he reads it. Yet folks that would shudder at the very thought of being branded or sporting facial piercings don't even balk at the idea of having a chastity piercing ! Where are these kinksters' heads at ? Do they not understand the commitment and the pain involved ? 
RE: Sissy Maid Poll #1 - 
RE: Sissy Maid Poll #1 - 
RE: Sissy Maid Poll #1 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread