4 ms·

If you take into account bone structure and facial recognition, he/she might be more approachable by women for having a friendlier face.

• joshzayin 16y ago
  FYI, the correct pronoun to use here would be "he," as Mr. Forrister identifies as male, not female.
  • TGJ 16y ago
    I'm sorry but I simply do not agree and I doubt this is the place to delve any further.
    • jackowayed 16y ago
      You don't agree with referring to people as the gender that they consider themselves? There's a lot of people out there that don't like their first names, so they go by their middle names. I don't see how calling a female-to-male transgendered person "she" or "he/she" is any different from calling someone that prefers their middle name by their first name. In both cases, you're shoehorning them into a way of identifying themselves that works fine for most people (Most people go by their first names; most people go by the gender they were biologically born as.) but does not work for them. In both cases you're being an asshole.
      • TGJ 16y ago
        Thank you for calling me an asshole for not agreeing with you. Thank you for calling me an asshole for not subscribing to the same set of morals that you have. Thank you for calling me an asshole for thinking that drugs and cosmetic surgery do not make the person, the person just is. Thank you for calling me an asshole.
        • joshzayin 16y ago
          > the person just is Exactly. Transsexuals were born with the incorrect genitals. The drugs and cosmetic surgery do not correct their gender--just the physical expression of it. Referring to them as the incorrect gender is no different than referring to a cisgendered person as the incorrect gender--worse, actually, because transsexuals likely struggle with identity issues and bigotry much more so than cisgendered people, and by referring to a transgendered person by the incorrect gender, you're only making that problem worse.
          • TGJ 16y ago
            So what would this person be 100 years ago? Without these options of drugs and cosmetics, that person would have to deal with they way that they were born. They would have to live life as the person that they were born. They are not fixing anything by taking drugs or cosmetics, they are hiding from the underlying problems of self-identity. You going along with the charade only complicates the problem of the person not actualizing the situation that they are in and dealing with it. I offered no bigotry, but I sure received it.
            • joshzayin 16y ago
              Bigotry? What is your definition of bigotry that you think any response you've received is bigoted? As to what they would've done 100 years ago, how is that in any way relevant? This isn't "hiding" any issues--transsexuality is a medically diagnosable condition, not just a "self-identity" problem that they are "hiding from," and to imply otherwise is a huge insult to transsexuals.
              • reneherse 16y ago
                down-voted for what exactly? this seems to be as civil a debate as any other.
            • spicyj 16y ago
              This person would have been a man just as much, regardless of whether he would have had to live his life in a woman's body. Your argument is that drugs and cosmetic surgery change nothing about a person's true identity, and that's true. The thing is, he can fix some of his self-identity problems by undergoing a sex change. Like jackowayed says, the reality is that there are transgendered people who are not happy with their sex at birth, just as there are gays who love men instead of women and bisexuals who are attracted to people of both sexes. Your perception of what's normal and acceptable doesn't change who people really are.
      • PostOnce 16y ago
        You can go ahead and start calling me black, then. Also, you have to accept that I identify as blind. Just because I am sighted doesn't mean I can't identify as blind. And deaf. Sign everything you say to me, because although I hear perfectly, I identify as deaf. Fuck political correctness. That's for retards. Oops, did I just say retards? That's not very politically correct of me. People can do whatever the hell they want, that's fine, but they have no right to expect me to change my behavior. They do what pleases them, I do what pleases me. Neither of us may please each other, and that should be fine. Why do you care so much?
        • lwhi 16y ago
          No .. you have no right to treat people according to your own closed-minded and bigoted views. If we were all to follow your ugly example of what 'freedom' involves, racism and prejudice would be accepted blindly. It's only those who are part of the status quo, who can be as cavalier about the subject of 'political correctness' as you are. You're an ass. Why? Because all of your comparisons assume that the author's reasoning is imagined and fabricated. You are totally negating something which is obviously vitally important to the author. It's a fact that transgendered people's needs are real, and that not dealing with these needs causes a great deal of pain and disadvantage for those involved. It's not politically correct to think this - it's simply part of being a decent human being.
          • PostOnce 16y ago
            I do have a right to treat people however I please, and they have the right to choose not to interact with me. If I want to make myself a pariah, by whatever means, then I damn well have the right to do so. And if by insisting to be referred to as a man, someone else makes themselves a pariah, that was also their choice. Live and let live, I say, but that does not mean you should acquiesce just because someone feels their views are right (i.e., agree with you, heh, what makes your views any more right than mine, or the people who upvoted me?). Just because something is important to someone else doesn't mean I have to give a fuck about it. For example, I am not going to be a vegan just because other people think it's bad to eat meat. Also, calling me an ass really strengthened your argument. Kudos.
      • nandemo 16y ago
        John Middle Doe may ask to be called John, or Middle, or Doe. Nobody can deny that these names can all refer to the same person. But if Mr. Doe asked to be addressed as the King of France surely he would be regarded as delusional. One could still say that calling him Mr. Doe "does not work for him" but I can't see how that makes it wrong. Now, some of us are skeptical that a person born as a man can literally become a woman, or that there are women out there who just happened to be born "trapped" inside a man's body (and vice-versa). Note that this doesn't imply bigotry of any sort. Personally I don't care strongly about the matter. I would address the OP as "he" if I was talking directly to him. But I wouldn't feel guilty at all of speaking of her outside that.
    • Psyonic 16y ago
      Apparently discussion on the matter isn't acceptable here. I don't know that I agree with you, but you were polite, and I definitely wouldn't have downvoted you for expressing your views.
      • pjscott 16y ago
        That wasn't really discussion, though, was it? A flat "I don't agree, and I don't want to go into it further" doesn't contribute much except frustration. If there had been some argument, some reasoning to back it up, then that would have been fine. Discussion on the matter is acceptable here, as the ensuing discussion has shown. But simple drive-by contradiction? I would say, vote that to about 0.
      • deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • lwhi 16y ago
      It's about respect. If someone feels more aligned with a gender they weren't born with - and they feel the need to do something about it, then they deserve to be have their needs respected.