Some little titbits and facts about transgenderism and gender dysphoria.

Lyranne wrote:

The danger of the mass consumed media is exactly that it's lowest common demominator trash. I remember when a male-to-female was on a reality TV show and happened to be from Portugal, so the tabloids ran garish titles such as 'Portu-geezer' and so on. I've seen even worse about, and for many, they do still assume transexuals and gays are the same thing.

Nadia from Big Brother, series 5 I believe. It was the most bizarre set up they had gone for before then as almost everyone was either gay or bi-sexual, like they wanted to stir up controversy

I thought that was the sole purpose of that show anyway?

I despair atg reality TV, and not just because of the representation.

Also: grats on 1337 posts

Lyranne wrote:

I thought that was the sole purpose of that show anyway?

I despair atg reality TV, and not just because of the representation.

Also: grats on 1337 posts

Actually, it started off as a social experiment. But with the coverage their nude body painting got I think that Channel 4 saw how they could make the most of it.

In series 5 it showed up some of the things that can come up for a post-op with Nadia getting harassed by one of the other people in the house and a lot of media coverage.

Big Brother has the most tasteless name, concerning where it comes from...

Snicka wrote:

Big Brother has the most tasteless name, concerning where it comes from...

But that was the whole point of the name... that you could watch the clowns in the house at any time, like in 1984 you were watched all the time.

Although why you'd want to watch such a bunch of mongs takin a shit, picking their nose, or gossiping, beats the smeg outta me.

Vexacus wrote:

Snicka wrote:

Big Brother has the most tasteless name, concerning where it comes from...

But that was the whole point of the name... that you could watch the clowns in the house at any time, like in 1984 you were watched all the time.

Although why you'd want to watch such a bunch of mongs takin a shit, picking their nose, or gossiping, beats the smeg outta me.

I know why it is named that. But the character Big Brother symbolizes total humiliation and lack of freedom... so naming a show after him is like supporting those ideas.

They say ocial experiment, but even the first series had a 'winner', and they recieved a cash payout. A true social experiment would forgo such 'rewards'. That, or such carrots would be linked to betraying each others trust, of placing oneself before others (or conversely, not).

Though none of that changes how poor reality TV is suited to such an idea. People made famous from nothing seems wrong.

Now I need to stop typing, as my nephew's fallen asleep in my arms.

Good luck.

Lyranne wrote:

They say ocial experiment, but even the first series had a 'winner', and they recieved a cash payout. A true social experiment would forgo such 'rewards'. That, or such carrots would be linked to betraying each others trust, of placing oneself before others (or conversely, not).

You say that, but if you have a look at how the money affected people's behaviour ("Nasty" Nick being a prime example) and you still have a social experiment.

Call me old fashioned, but I consider a social experiment not to have any carrot attached. There's no questioning motivations, and the 'tasks' on such shows are not truly testing of ones resolve. Of course we can't offer people the chance to murder someone, but because of such trivial things like putting on a fashion show or whathaveyou, I simply don't feel it's suited to such theoretical ideas as it pretends it is. There was a much more interesting one done in Germany with 'prisoners' and 'prison wardens'. They explored what effect such roles have on people, and it's infinitely more fascinating than anything to have left Big Brother.

Regardless, I know lots of people like it, and I'm not about to dwell too much on something I really don't have time for.

On the plus side, I'm not too nervous about my next meeting in London, mostly because there's little that can go wrong. Still antsy due to waiting around of course.

Big brother = monkeys in a cage. Can you draw conclusions from that? Indeed you can, conclusions about how monkeys behave in cages.
Add a carrot, and you can draw conclusions about how monkeys in cages tries to get the carrot. While it does show one side of monkey nature, it is not representative of their natural behaviour, provided monkeys does not normally live in cages with carrots.
I personally prefer to study monkeys outside of cages, but that's because I'm not amused of seeing them throwing shit on each other. A lot of people like to see monkeys throwing shit, becuase it makes them feel better about themselves. After all, they would never behave like that (unless put in a cage with a carrot?).

On the point of gender switch: Once you have percieved your goal, launch at it with all your might. What others think is largely inconsiquensial, as it's you that have to live with yourself, not them. Don't apolagize for what, or who, you are.
Those that presume to judge you are not worth the effort of pleasing. It will fail, and you'll feel crappy in the process.
Realize what you actually have, hold onto it tight and sieze any oppertinuity for happieness. You are worth it.

:3 Thank you for your kinhds words, Gabbe. I would say though that it's a shame for monkeys to be compared to the type of individual to appear on Big Brother, however. For one, a monkey's smarter, and can probably speak a human language with more eloquence.

We are all but thinly-veiled chimpanzees. With aggression. And technology. That's it. You, me, him, her, you it: we are aggressive chimps with tech.

Something very interesting has come to light in regards to gender dysphoria.

"We take for granted that we maintain the sex we are born with, including whether we have testes of ovaries.

"but this work shows that the activity of a single gene, FoxL2, is all that prevents ovaries turning into cells found in testes.

"If it is possible to make these changes in adult humans, it may eventually remove the need for surgery in sexual reassignment treatment.

"If this does become possible, it's likely that while treated individuals would make the right hormones for their new sex, fertility would be lost. It's still very speculative, but it's possible that this approach could produce an alternative to surgery and the removal of gonads - ovaries and testes. It's a little more natural, but of course anyone undergoing such a sex-change would be infertile."

This is interesting because so far as these researchers have found, transgenderism is genetic, and something cause by a constant battle for supremacy between male and female genes (essentially fighting a constant survival of the fittest battle within all of us). This revelation has implications for why some women after menopause develop male traits, as essentially male genes start to win.

Basically, the findings show that our gender's not fixed, but something that has to be maintained by a specific gene. In females, the Fox2 gene blocks the Sox9. When they switch off Fox2, the latter takes over, and essentially performs a partial sex-change.

I have found all of this within Friday the eleventh's Independent. I'll try and find a link if I can, but the research is being published in the journal 'Cell'. As a transexual, I find this truly fascinating.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ There we go.

I also find it fascinating. While i'm not a biologist and, therefore, lack the fundamentals for understanding -how- exactly this might work, as a scientist, it intrigues me greatly.

The idea that i may only be female because i have an efficient FoxL2 is amazing

It's a strong arguement for 'people are people' no matter what their -physical- nature. The idea that we are defined as this or that by some set pattern of deity or nature is seeming a little flawed in the light of this.

Oh, and the 'we should stop playing god!!!' comments made me lol

Quote :

It's a strong arguement for 'people are people' no matter what their -physical- nature.

Then what are people?
Feel free to say we're "playing god" after you've answered this simple question.
And no, the question isn't directed at anyone particularly.

tbh, I think it's slightly scary that there's only one gene that might prevent you from being who you are? essentially.
And another point..... they called the male version Sox? that's laaaamee... female scientists, hmpfff..

Edit: I'm confusing even myself when I'm trying to think about this more than the simple "whatever, let people be what they want to be". So I'll stick with that.

Very interesting indeed.
The activation/deactivation of certain single genes often have very impressive results, especially in a still developing body... the surprising thing in this new research is that they managed to make a change in an adult body. And, Feronius, there are a lot of genes that determine who you are... but the change in one can be so drastic.
Note that the deactivation of this FoxL2 changes only the nature of the ovaries: they will start functioning as testicle tissue, producing male hormones. The appearance of the body - including the body structure, the secondary sexual characteristics, and the genitalia - will not change much, unless the genetic manipulation is performed in a still developing body. But these, on the other hand, can be changed with some plastic surgery.
Also, it is important to note that this genetic manipulation apparently turns only female gonads into male ones, and doesn't work the other way. It would be logical to try activating the FoxL2 - or deactivating Sox9 - in male mice, and see the effect of it on gonads.

I will experiment on someone's body. If you let me make a film about it.

One would assume that it is the deactivation of the male gene that would create the male-to-female partial sex-change, though it's anyone's guess. One also wonders if the activation of testosterone might also be a way to have a permanent 'fix' for certain male arousal issues, as if there's any link, it could well d away with viagra. The potential to prevent menopause also seems to be there, as with any potential falterings in that department for both genders. Considering mans increasing longevity, who can say how long we'll be expecting to live for in five hundred years time. If the birth rate ever declined in any species, it could well aid in preventing extinction (though toying with the natural order and preventing an animal in natural decline from dying out could well be detrimental to the surrounding eco system). Of course, this is a mere theoretical stretch, and I could well be way off the mark with it ^^

It could also be a trult humane way to deal with certain vermin man has unintentionally introduced to ecosystems, like the cane toad and so forth. Certainly more humane to make an animal infertile than smack it over the head with a baseball bat.

I think Julie simply meant that we are who we are. Our genetic makeup deigns us to be as we feel we are, and though a physical trait or apearance might say otherwise, it really isn't so simple as accepting that'what you see is what you get'. It very much supports "Don't judge a book by its cover" rather than simply assuming that people are mental if they don't adhere to the socially accepted description of normal.

On a side note, I had a very surreal conversation in Manchester on Saturday. Well, I say conversation, I was a little too shy and startled to really be very vocal, but Julie helped a lot ^^ Basicallly some very drunk bloke came up to me, saying how strange it was to see me in a dress, heels, etc. I actualy thought he was going to attack me, as whether or not he meant it, he came across as aggressive. Excluding him though, it seemed most people didn't bat an eyelid, which was nice

Lyranne wrote:

I think Julie simply meant that we are who we are. Our genetic makeup deigns us to be as we feel we are, and though a physical trait or apearance might say otherwise, it really isn't so simple as accepting that'what you see is what you get'. It very much supports "Don't judge a book by its cover" rather than simply assuming that people are mental if they don't adhere to the socially accepted description of normal.

you have it correct there. That is exactly what i was trying to say

Quote :

On a side note, I had a very surreal conversation in Manchester on Saturday. Well, I say conversation, I was a little too shy and startled to really be very vocal, but Julie helped a lot ^^ Basicallly some very drunk bloke came up to me, saying how strange it was to see me in a dress, heels, etc. I actualy thought he was going to attack me, as whether or not he meant it, he came across as aggressive. Excluding him though, it seemed most people didn't bat an eyelid, which was nice

That was indeed quite the experience. I think the poor fellow was suffering from culture shock (as much as the effects of alcohol ). He said he was from Barrow-in-furness...they only just got the hang of fire up there you know. They use it to burn the people that suggest the wheel might be useful... *

*disclaimer: this is a joke...no offence was meant to anybody that might be, or know somebody, from Barrow

Crikey, what's more surprising to me is that Sarah and Julie can survive a night-out with the knuckle-draggers! White British males + alcohol = Mordoor.