Unknown Transexuality & Relationship

Off Topic
81

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

If the girl has fake tits installed…has she mutilated her breasts?

[/quote]

yes. Mutilate has a negative connotation, but it is what it is. [/quote]

So even though a problem has been fixed you still call it mutilate? That’s a pretty broad definition. I suspect there would be a lot of surgeons who would be pretty damn miffed over that.

And the negative connotation was used deliberately. Methinks it shows the true nature of the respondent.[/quote]

I’ve heard ear piercing referred to as self-mutilation - same goes for tattoos

By definition: mutilation - the act of mutilating or being mutilated;

mutilate - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

Seems pretty succinct to me - there’s nothing in these definitions relating to intent.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Since the age of 5, i always felt that i was a black man and BRUCE jenner has inspired me to make that change.

Will society openly accept me as they do Bruce if i tattoo myself black, perm my hair up into a fro, get lip injections, and start dressing “black”?

Why shouldn’t i get the cover of black magazines and clothing endorsements? Hell, i’d accept being brutalized by the police as well… [/quote]

I’ve always felt like the wrong species myself…[/quote]

Well you Sir, are an otherkin![/quote]

I didn’t know that was an actual thing…

83

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

If the girl has fake tits installed…has she mutilated her breasts?

[/quote]

yes. Mutilate has a negative connotation, but it is what it is. [/quote]

So even though a problem has been fixed you still call it mutilate? That’s a pretty broad definition. I suspect there would be a lot of surgeons who would be pretty damn miffed over that.

And the negative connotation was used deliberately. Methinks it shows the true nature of the respondent.[/quote]

I’ve heard ear piercing referred to as self-mutilation - same goes for tattoos

By definition: mutilation - the act of mutilating or being mutilated;

mutilate - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

Seems pretty succinct to me - there’s nothing in these definitions relating to intent.[/quote]

Actually there is sufficient ambiguity in that definition to have a field day.

In the case of body augmentation be it tattoos, piercings, implants the disfigurement is in the eye of the beholder.

To make imperfect implies the part was perfect to begin with. Ask a Trans if they think the part is perfect. Function is not necessarily perfection. They would argue that the part has been reassigned to a better form for them.

But the use of the word mutilate was deliberate and used as a pejorative and that is the intent of which I spoke.

84

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

If the girl has fake tits installed…has she mutilated her breasts?

[/quote]

yes. Mutilate has a negative connotation, but it is what it is. [/quote]

So even though a problem has been fixed you still call it mutilate? That’s a pretty broad definition. I suspect there would be a lot of surgeons who would be pretty damn miffed over that.

And the negative connotation was used deliberately. Methinks it shows the true nature of the respondent.[/quote]

I’ve heard ear piercing referred to as self-mutilation - same goes for tattoos

By definition: mutilation - the act of mutilating or being mutilated;

mutilate - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

Seems pretty succinct to me - there’s nothing in these definitions relating to intent.[/quote]

Actually there is sufficient ambiguity in that definition to have a field day.

In the case of body augmentation be it tattoos, piercings, implants the disfigurement is in the eye of the beholder.

To make imperfect implies the part was perfect to begin with. Ask a Trans if they think the part is perfect. Function is not necessarily perfection. They would argue that the part has been reassigned to a better form for them.

But the use of the word mutilate was deliberate and used as a pejorative and that is the intent of which I spoke.
[/quote]

Good points - my only rebuttal is in regards to your tattoos/piercing reference. Regardless of perception, by function, you are irreparably altering/damaging that which was formed naturally. Regardless of whether you consider it beautification or not, this function fits the definition of mutilation. Either, any, or all of the definitions provided are sufficient to call these acts mutilation. Good or bad, it is what it is.

I do not recall the context in which “mutilation” was first mentioned in regards to this discussion, but, regardless of implication or inference of intent that word is still accurate, again, being sufficient in one or more of the definitions provided. You do not need all of the definitions for the word to be accurate, one will suffice. (We can probably do this all day; so it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the word “mutilate” accurately describes the particular procedure of chopmydickoffame).

85

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

But the use of the word mutilate was deliberate and used as a pejorative and that is the intent of which I spoke.
[/quote]

lmao… You have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Continue to ignore every other thing I’ve said and wallow in your ignorance. I hear it’s bliss.

Jesus Christ.

86

[quote]debraD wrote:

OH, MAN! That was great!

87

Many trans women will say that they do not disclose early on because the risk of a violent reaction is so great. I think that is probably fair.

A trans person should disclose, however, before sex - even if the operation is so perfect that it would be undetectable. That’s not an absolute truth, it is just a matter of mores. The fact that she cannot have biological children should also come up fairly early in the process.

I wonder what some of you would say if the “operation” were a brain transplant… taking a brain from a male body and putting it into a female body. Would that then be real enough? What about people who are born intersexed? Is there a chart I can consult to determine whether such people are “actually” men or women?

You can say what you like about psychological issues, but many transgendered people do not have significant issues beyond their feeling that their biological gender does not match their gender identity and their fear/guilt about the reactions of others. Reassignment and passing as the gender they identify with can, for the most part, resolve these issues.

Human beings are strange, irrational creatures. It isn’t that one ought to be attracted to trans people, nor that one ought to date them. It is the idea that if you found someone externally indistinguishable from a beautiful woman you would ordinarily be very happy with (assuming you do not want biological children), you would break things off because she was born a man. I’m the same way. But it probably says more about how we are socialized to be men than it says about the veracity of a trans woman’s femininity.