NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4807

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 6.4 KB | 146 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!news.ils.nwu.edu!lynch
From: [e-mail] (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:07:02 GMT
Lines: 133

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>[Some time before I got to it, someone [Janice?] else was deleted.]
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>-
>>>-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>->Rich Payne ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>>->> Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
>>>->> (The sex change that is)
>>>->
>>>->Why???? Because I am a woman. I just happened to get stuck inside of a man's
>>>->body. While I have surpressed these emotions for many years, and tried to
>>>->act as a man, I've always known I was female. The internal conflict is
>>>->almost too much to bear. I doubt that you would understand. Most people
>>>->don't, although more women seem to then men.
>>>->
>>>->> Rich
>>>->
>>>->Wendy
>>>-
>>>-Think about what we all experience as real differences between men and women.
>>>-Men and women think, act, react, dream, ... differently.
>>>
>>>I would like to point out that Richard Lynch claims that these differences
>>>are a matter of social conditioning. He has (as far as I can tell) denied
>>>that biology plays any significant role.
>>
>>Talk about misrepresentation!!!
>>1.  I agreed with you from day 1 that it was possible that biology was the
>>reason for porn imbalance.  You are the one who insists that it cannot be
>>anything else.
>
>Not so, you admitteded it much later in the game, and I did not say that
>"it could not be anything else", or anything to that effect. I said that
>there was no problem, and that given the biological/developmental/percept-
>ual differences there was no reason to assume that men and women would make
>the same choices even in the absence of social conditioning.
>
>Happy? I am talking about your misrepresentation of my position.

I do not want to continue this.  Please refrain from stating my position
[incorrectly] in other threads.  If I wanna say something here, I will.
Otherwise, leave me out of it.


>>2.  We were arguing [note past tense] about pornography, not about all these
>>other things.
>
>My position was not pornography specific. And you have yet to explain how,
>if social conditioning were a major factor, it would be possible to
>feel like a "women in a mans body". How does this fit in with your social
>conditioning (brainwashing?) theory?

What's there to explain?  Social conditioning is hardly fool-proof.  The human
mind is far more capable of self-alteration [in a hurry even] than the body.
You have not explained how 100% biology would work, either.  But it looks like
neither of us wants to take a 100% stance, so this means nothing.


>>>I have problems reconciling the concept of a "women in a man's body" (or vice
>>>versa) with the concept of sexual identity 100% assigned by social
>>>conditioning.
>>
>>Obviously either:
>>a.  sexual identity is not 100% assigned by social conditioning, or
>
>Can we accept this as a given then?

Yes.

>>b.  the social conditioning received by Wendy assigned a sexual identity not
>>consistent with her physical body.
>
>This should not be possible, social conditioning is all pervasive. Unless
>Wendy grew up in another country or wayyyy back in the hills. Perhaps
>Wendy can shed some light on this.

I believe Wendy made it clear that she was raised as a feminist by a single
woman.  I suppose now you're going to claim it's her mother's fault?  :-)


>>I have problems understanding why you can't see these simple possibilities.
>
>No, you have problems seeing through your preconceptions.

Specifically?

>>>-Now, each one of you that strongly identifies with being male or female - take
>>>-your current personality and picture it inside the body of the opposite sex.
>>>-It would be damned awkward, confusing, at times humiliating as you would
>>>-behave in a manner different from the "norm".  Wouldn't you want to get
>>>-back to a body you're comfortable in?
>>>-
>>>-I don't know about the statistics, but I've not yet heard of somebody
>>>-changing their sex twice!
>>
>>>I have not heard of any such reverse sex changes either, but I wonder if
>>>this is even medically possible with current medical technology.
>>
>>>-Nature/God tries out endless "variations on a theme" all the time.  I don't
>>>-know why people feel so threatened that someone is born gay
>>>
>>>It is still an open question as to whether anyone is born gay. I do not
>>>claim to know one way or another BTW.
>>>
>>>-                                                              or that someone
>>>-feels like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  Since our society
>>>-has trouble accepting men who act like women, I think it's fine to use
>>>-the technology we have to allow someone to be consistent in their nature and
>>>-their appearance.
>>>
>>>If they so desire. But I wonder how such things are funded?
>>
>>Sometimes insurance covers it.  I would surmise that there is at least one
>>charity designed specifically to fund them.  And, of course, there is always
>>the possibility that one pays for it oneself.
>
>Without knowing actual costs, I am sure that it is way beyond my means,
>and I would hazard that few not independantly could. Which raises the
>interesting possibility that we are all paying through insurance costs.
>Is this not considered elective surgery?

Assuming one has gone through extensive therapy and is still unhappy, and
assuming one's psychiatrist(s) agree that one will *not* be a psychologically
stable adult without the surgery, I dare say a good laywer could make a case
that this is "quality of life" surgery.

Of course, you've completely ignore the charity I mentioned in your analysis,
as well as the possibility that only people who *are* rich enough [or scrimp
and save enough] can get such surgery.
--
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich [e-mail]