regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/12/85)
>It makes me think twice about taking Sunny Kirsten's >opinions on comparative hormonal evils seriously. >I seems biologically improbable that an individual >could experience, at separate times, the full effects of both >maleness and femaleness. Any female-to-male transsexuals >out there to refute or concur? >-todd jones Not to pick on you alone, todd, because this has been said before, BUT-- seems one can't win for losing. Had someone (female) said something about testosterone poisoning and how men react to women in group situations, undoubtedly someone (male) would have remarked that she knew not whereof she spoke. We've already had some people (males) being told by others (females) that they haven't the faintest idea what they are talking of. So we finally get a comment from someone who may have dual insight and the first thing we do is say "NAH! Obviously wrong!" I'm not suggesting that we automatically suppose that Sunny knows how the world turns, and could she all show us the way, but automatic rejection based on nothing but uninformed prejudice seems unnecessary, doesn't it? What about looking at what was _said_? After all, I know PLENTY of men who respond just as Sunny pointed out, when a woman walks by -- not ALL men, not when ALL women walk by and not ALL the time, but it certainly occurs, and they aren't schoolboys either. But, hey, I'm female, and therefore, by definition, don't know what I'm talking about. Right? Yeh. Adrienne Regard
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/14/85)
> So we finally get a comment from someone who may have dual insight and the > first thing we do is say "NAH! Obviously wrong!" > > I'm not suggesting that we automatically suppose that Sunny knows how the > world turns, and could she all show us the way, but automatic rejection based > on nothing but uninformed prejudice seems unnecessary, doesn't it? What > about looking at what was _said_? But I *was* reacting to what she _said_! She said that testosterone was a 'poison' which 'clouded the mind'. So what can we condlude from this? That all men are walking around with their bloodstreams filled with a mind clouding poison *and* that women (normally) *don't* have their minds clouded. Now if this were true, I'm sure that at some time in my life, I would have noticed that women were consistantly more intelligent and more clear- thinking than men. But I haven't noticed this. So apparently, either: a.) Sunny's right, but my mind is too clouded by testosterone to realize it. b.) Sunny is wrong. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if some female->male transexual on the net came up with the idea that estrogen is a mind-clouding poison? This would explain the basis for our patriarchial society, why there are so few women in high-tech jobs, etc. (please be aware, potential flamers, that I am *not* actually advocating this position - this is for illustrative purposes only.) Would he be flamed by the *same* people who have defended Sunny for saying the *same* thing? You bet. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Like a newuser (HACK!), flamed for the very first time..."
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/19/85)
> Gosh, I wonder what would happen if some female->male transexual on the > net came up with the idea that estrogen > is a mind-clouding poison? This would explain the basis for our patriarchial > society, why there are so few women in high-tech jobs, etc. (please be > aware, potential flamers, that I am *not* actually advocating this position - > this is for illustrative purposes only.) Would he be flamed by the *same* > people who have defended Sunny for saying the *same* thing? You bet. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j There's a not very subtle difference between defending the status quo and challenging the status quo. Challenging is what Sunny is doing, and if some choose to speak up to defend her, they have often not so much been attacking men, which is how some others have interpreted such an action, as defending Sunny's right to discuss her reasons for her actions. Defending the status quo is a much safer position to take. I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. It's also rather rude and irrational to extrapolate that those who may speak up for Sunny would be such militant man-haters as to flame in such a case. Why not wait and see if it were to happen? Why sit around *just knowing* what is gonna happen? L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
dbercel@sun.uucp (danielle & the Kitten brigade) (08/20/85)
L S Chabot writes: > I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. I'm sure Sunny can elaborate on this in more detail but the current statistics indicate that there are four male-to-female transsexuals for every one female-to-male transsexuals. Additionally, there seems to be very few female-to-male transvestites probably since women tend to not sexually objectify articles of clothing. meow
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/20/85)
First. An appology: When I wrote the article about testosterone being a "poison" I was still a bit bent out of shape from being toasted by a series of articles, all written by men, which challenged my ability to make any valid observations. It is true, that in my anger, which is a defense mechanism against feeling pain, in this case the intense pain of repetetive rejection and invalidation, by men, that I stretched both the truth and the point I was trying to make. If you wonder why I sometimes come down rather hard on "men", then go edit your .newsrc file and re-read all the articles in net.women again, and keep track of how many women have ever put down anyone, versus how many men have done so. And count the articles as well as the people. And you tell me just how many women don't take a positive constructive approach to criticism or disagreement with others, and contrast that with how many men take a positive constructive approach. And then you'll stop wondering why I don't find it necessary to put women down in this forum. (i.e. they don't put me down, so I don't have to get defensive)... I've had women disagree with me, and I've had them tell me I was just plain wrong about some issue, and I've often had them give me constructive criticism, but it's extremely rare that a woman will invalidate another human, especially in public. Which brings me to observe a curious phenomena... Regarding the rather controversial issues I've brought up in net.women, regarding the differences between male and female hormones as they effect the mental and emotional processes of a human brain... I've been repeatedly toasted in public by quite a few men. I've been disagreed with by a couple of women in this public forum. I've had lots of support via private mail, most of it from women, and some of it from men. So: Why do people support privately, but criticize publicly, Why is this phenomena of public criticism more prevalent with men, and why is this practice counter to the (well known) principle of "Praise in public, criticize in private"? But, back to the main topic: right after this message from our un-sponsor: I haven't been following the discussions in other newsgroups about the controversy of trying to train natural left-handers to be right-handed, but the fact that it happens, is only Yet Another Symptom of the following: The human brain is composed of two hemispheres. Some people believe (others, I think the minority, object), that the logical and mathematical and the spatial perceptive abilities are active primarily in the left hemisphere, and that these are more adept in males than females, and, conversely, that, the emotional and intuitive and artistic abilities are active primarily in the right hemisphere, and that these are more adept in females than males. Now, it is also well known, and seldom disagreed with, that the right hemisphere controls the left limbs and eye, while the left hemisphere controls the right limbs and eye. Thus, it may be said, that the attempts to train leftys to become rightys is Yet Another Symptom of male domination, and societal implementation of the dominance of male traights. For by forcing a human to use their right hand predominantly, we are encouraging the dominance of the left hemisphere, and the "masculine" abilities. At the same time we are suppressing the right hemisphere, and the "feminine" abilities. Note also, that, from the medical literature I have studied, (admittedly not exhaustive, and therefore not necessarily the majority opinion), and from my own experiences with the sex hormones, that the male hormones promote left-brain activity and agressiveness and competitiveness, while the female hormones promote right-brain activity and passivity and cooperativeness. Now, unless you are a castrated male, or a (word, where's that word?) female sans ovaries, you ARE under the influence of a very powerful drug, known as "the sex hormones". These drugs do indeed alter the thought patterns, and predominant behavior patterns of the human under their influence. While it is true that I cannot claim to be free of hormonal influences so as to be able to accurately observe what brain functioning would be like *without* hormones of either sex present, I can claim, and in fact, have experienced and observed, a transition from a state of being at effect of male hormones, to the state of being at effect of female hormones. Specifically, what I have observed about myself, is a lessening of agressive behavior, a lessening of preoccupation with matters sexual, and an increase in emotionality and sensuality. I believe you will find that these are precisely the differences observed between the stereotypical "male" and "female" of the species, so often observed in books which have aimed to help a member of one sex try to understand a member of the opposite sex. In Other Words, the prime shift has been from left-brain/ right-handed/logical/agressive dominance, to right-brain/left-handed/ emotional/passive dominance in my brain activity. Since the ridiculous discussion which prompted me to speak up was one in which so many men were purporting to be knowledgeable about the effects of female hormones on women, without any objective experience upon which to base their observations of PMS, and since the main discussion was not about uterine cramps or other aspects of PMS which relate solely to women's internal plumbing about which I obviously can make no more relavent observations than a man could, I chose to speak up from my experience of the mental/emotional/behavioral effects of both sets of sex hormones. When I said that testosterone (which is *not* a poison) clouds the mind, I referred to my own firsthand experience with sexual obsession and agressive behavior which was not within my ability to consciously control. I don't call estrogen a problem like I do testosterone, for the following reason: The behavioral patterns brought about by estrogen influence, which tend to be beyond conscious control, tend to be passive behavior patterns, and non-harmful release of emotions (crying). The behavioral patterns brought about by testosterone influence, which tend to get beyond conscious control, tend to be active/agressive behavior patterns, often leading to violence (or other physical agression (e.g. rape)) and harmful release of emotions (anger). It is no accident, after observing the discussions in net.women about rape, that so many men can relate to the concept of: "I raped her because she asked for it by being dressed that way" or: "I find the defendant not guilty of rape because of her provocation". The reason why so many men believe this way, is because they have first-hand knowledge of their inability to control their own sexual impulses and their own violent expression of their need to dominate, to agress, as a result of testosterone taking over, and overpowering their ability to think rationally. The testosterone poisioning referred to in magazine articles and books (and the source of my reference to testosterone as a poison) is simply an indication that too much testosterone produces behavior which is not within the normal constraints of conscious rational control or societal morals or laws. The reason that rape is a men's issue, not a women's issue, and the reason that only men can stop rape, is that only men are under the influence of testosterone. Now, to answer charges of sexism, or male hating: I do not in any way hate the male of the species. Some of my closest and dearest friends are male. What I have repeatedly tried to point out in this forum, is that some "masculine" behavior patterns are less than desirable in the context of society. I'm not claiming that certain "feminine" behavior patterns aren't also less than optimal for society. What I am claiming is that, of the behavior patterns exhibited by human beings on the planet earth, the most destructive and least desirable ones from the overall viewpoint of the the betterment of the quality of life on this planet, our one and only spaceship, our dear mother earth, are primarily exhibited by males of the species. The fact is we are daily raping, killing, polluting, hurting, maiming and hating each other. Turn on the tube, cut the sound, spin the dial, and watch what our children (our future) are being taught as role models... violence, male agressions, and women as nothing more than sex-objects. There's nothing wrong with anyone being a sex object. But they should not be reduced (objectified) to only that. There's nothing wrong with sex. Except in the minds of the censors. There's too little found wrong with volence and agression. Warfare and domination. If it keeps on the way we're going, the only possible outcome is another war. How many years has it been since the world *didn't* have a war happening somewhere? Go ahead.. nuke it all. > > Gosh, I wonder what would happen if some female->male transexual on the > > net came up with the idea that estrogen > > is a mind-clouding poison? This would explain the basis for our patriarchial > > society, why there are so few women in high-tech jobs, etc. (please be > > aware, potential flamers, that I am *not* actually advocating this position - > > this is for illustrative purposes only.) Would he be flamed by the *same* > > people who have defended Sunny for saying the *same* thing? You bet. > > -- > > Jeff Sonntag > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > There's a not very subtle difference between defending the status quo and > challenging the status quo. Challenging is what Sunny is doing, and if some > choose to speak up to defend her, they have often not so much been attacking > men, which is how some others have interpreted such an action, as defending > Sunny's right to discuss her reasons for her actions. > Defending the status quo is a much safer position to take. > > I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. > > It's also rather rude and irrational to extrapolate that those who may speak > up for Sunny would be such militant man-haters as to flame in such a case. > Why not wait and see if it were to happen? Why sit around *just knowing* what > is gonna happen? > > L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/20/85)
> > Gosh, I wonder what would happen if some female->male transexual on the > > net came up with the idea that estrogen >> is a mind-clouding poison? This would explain the basis for our patriarchial > > society, why there are so few women in high-tech jobs, etc. (please be >> aware, potential flamers, that I am *not* actually advocating this position - > > this is for illustrative purposes only.) Would he be flamed by the *same* > > people who have defended Sunny for saying the *same* thing? You bet. > > Jeff Sonntag > > It's also rather rude and irrational to extrapolate that those who may speak > up for Sunny would be such militant man-haters as to flame in such a case. > Why not wait and see if it were to happen? Why sit around *just knowing* what > is gonna happen? >L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa Cor! Who said anything about militant man-haters? I'd be flaming too, and *I'm* certainly not a man-hater; I just think that it's appropriate to flame people who make sexist remarks - sort of doing my part to advance the cause of sexual equality. And Lisa - it's also kind of rude and irrational to put nasty words like "militant man-haters" in my mouth. Could you try to avoid it in the future? Thanx. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Just them up like regular chicken cuts, do I?" - Yoda
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/21/85)
I'd never heard of a female -> male transsexual, until the day after I said that and I was catching up on some other postings and read about Jerry's friend. I apologize for being so ignorant and unknowledgeable. Slightly less ignorant today!, L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/21/85)
In article <4@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) writes: > >I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. Well, I used to know a female to male transexual (I used to know her, but haven't seen him since the operation). So there are transexuals in the other direction, though from what I have heard and read it is much more common to go male -> female rather than the other way. I've often wondered why.. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/22/85)
In article <2669@sun.uucp> dbercel@sun.uucp (danielle & the Kitten brigade) writes: >L S Chabot writes: > >> I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. > >I'm sure Sunny can elaborate on this in more detail but the current >statistics indicate that there are four male-to-female transsexuals >for every one female-to-male transsexuals. Additionally, there seems to >be very few female-to-male transvestites probably since women tend to >not sexually objectify articles of clothing. I'll add that, as I mentioned in one of my replies to Sunny, one of my dearest friends is a female->male transsexual. I last spoke with him about two years ago (he lives in England) when he had completed all but the final phase of the surgical procedures and was looking around for a good surgeon to do the phaloplasty. At the time, he was unmistakeably a man with his clothes on. I expect by now he's unmistakeably a man even with his clothes off. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/22/85)
> > Why do people support privately, but criticize publicly, Criticism often comes from anger, which is a difficult emotion to control. > Why is this phenomena of public criticism more prevalent with men, Women are taught to repress anger, and men are taught to express it. > and why is this practice counter to the (well known) principle of > "Praise in public, criticize in private"? I know that I am considerably more motivated to post a followup when I think that someone has said something incorrect than when someone says something I agree with. I think this is because USENET is a public forum, and when someone says something which I think is demonstrably incorrect, I want to make sure that the many people who read the net don't end up believing something I think is false. In cases like this I usually try to point out my disagreement calmly and rationally, without attacking the person with whom I am disagreeing (I hope I succeed at this). Sometimes when I get really pissed I do attack. When someone posts something I agree with, I usually smile to myself and go on to the next message. It seems to me that posting a message like "I agree with you. Nice job." doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion, and such a message is more appropriately sent by mail. I only publically agree if I can amplify the point made by the original poster. > The human brain is composed of two hemispheres. Some people believe > (others, I think the minority, object), that the logical and mathematical and > the spatial perceptive abilities are active primarily in the left hemisphere, > and that these are more adept in males than females, and, conversely, that, > the emotional and intuitive and artistic abilities are active primarily in > the right hemisphere, and that these are more adept in females than males. The main objection I have heard to this theory is that the data comes mostly from people who have had their corpus callosum severed to cure a rare form of epilepsy (the corpus callosum is the part of the brain that provides communication between the two hemispheres). I have heard that some recent research shows that brain function is not so well divided between the two hemispheres in people who have not had the corpus callosum severed. I have also heard the hypothesis (which I admit doesn't completely contradict your statements) that mental function is not divided between the hemispheres at birth, and that the eventual division is a result of conditioning. That is, people in western culture make an artificial division between rational and emotional processes, and this gets programmed into brains which have no such built-in structure. I have no idea whether this is true, but it's interesting to think about. > Now, it is also well known, and seldom disagreed with, that the right > hemisphere controls the left limbs and eye, while the left hemisphere > controls the right limbs and eye. Thus, it may be said, that the attempts > to train leftys to become rightys is Yet Another Symptom of male domination, > and societal implementation of the dominance of male traights. For by > forcing a human to use their right hand predominantly, we are encouraging > the dominance of the left hemisphere, and the "masculine" abilities. At the > same time we are suppressing the right hemisphere, and the "feminine" > abilities. I think you're jumping to conclusions here. I don't believe it's true that the side of the brain that dominates physical activity also dominates mental activity. Why, then, are most women born right-handed? This doesn't make sense, considering that you also believe that most women are right-brained. > Now, unless you are a castrated male, or > a (word, where's that word?) female sans ovaries, you ARE under the > influence of a very powerful drug, known as "the sex hormones". These > drugs do indeed alter the thought patterns, and predominant behavior > patterns of the human under their influence. > > While it is true that I cannot claim to be free of hormonal > influences so as to be able to accurately observe what brain functioning > would be like *without* hormones of either sex present, I can claim, and > in fact, have experienced and observed, a transition from a state of > being at effect of male hormones, to the state of being at effect of female > hormones. It's hard to deny that hormones have some effect on mental state, but I wonder whether you're overstating your case. Please don't take this as an attack, Sunny, but is it possible that there is some placebo effect here? Did you have any expectations, concious or unconcious, of the effects that hormone changes would have on your thought patterns? Is it possible that you have preconceived ideas about how women think, and unconciously altered your thought patterns to meet your expectations when you started to become a woman? > Since the ridiculous discussion which prompted me to speak up was > one in which so many men were purporting to be knowledgeable about the > effects of female hormones on women, without any objective experience > upon which to base their observations of PMS, and since the main discussion > was not about uterine cramps or other aspects of PMS which relate solely > to women's internal plumbing about which I obviously can make no more > relavent observations than a man could, I chose to speak up from my experience > of the mental/emotional/behavioral effects of both sets of sex hormones. As I remember the discussion, one individual (Ross Greenberg) posted a message suggesting that women are statistically inferior due to PMS. Almost everyone else who participated in the discussion (both women and men) disagreed with Ross, and said that he was arguing illogically and making assumptions about PMS. I think that I read many more articles disagreeing with Ross than agreeing with him. I don't believe that most of the men who posted on the subject were making unwarranted assumptions. However, your articles originally sounded like you were saying "No, guys, it's the men who are inferior due to their hormones, not the women." I realize now that you were probably just pissed off at what some people were saying. > When I said that testosterone (which is *not* a poison) clouds the > mind, I referred to my own firsthand experience with sexual obsession and > agressive behavior which was not within my ability to consciously control. > I don't call estrogen a problem like I do testosterone, for the following > reason: The behavioral patterns brought about by estrogen influence, which > tend to be beyond conscious control, tend to be passive behavior patterns, > and non-harmful release of emotions (crying). The behavioral patterns > brought about by testosterone influence, which tend to get beyond conscious > control, tend to be active/agressive behavior patterns, often leading to > violence (or other physical agression (e.g. rape)) and harmful release of > emotions (anger). This is beginning to sound like a philosophy lesson, but I don't agree that anger is a harmful release of emotion. Anger *is* an emotion. One can release anger by crying, or shouting, or punching, or playing basketball. One can suppress anger instead of releasing it. Women are more likely than men to cry when they're angry; men are more likely to resort to aggressive behavior like verbal or physical violence. May I point out that all of these behaviors are debilitating? That is, they make a person useless for any kind of real action until he or she gets over it. The only use such behaviors have (besides avoiding an ulcer) is to let the person who made you angry know that he or she did something wrong. One doesn't usually choose how to be angry, but each type of release is appropriate in some situations (even physical violence). Crying gets the message across to someone who really cares about you better than shouting does. Shouting works better when dealing with a bully. Physical violence is OK when defending oneself against similar violence. I believe that many women would be better off if they learned how to be aggressively angry sometimes, and that many men would be better off if they learned how to be non-aggressivley angry. I'm back from my lecture now. Sunny, you lean toward attributing mental state and behavior to physical factors, such as hormones. I'm still not convinced that culture and upbringing don't have at least as much effect as hormones do. For instance, strong displays of anger are uncommon among Eskimos; is this because they have low testosterone levels, or is it because their society has to insure that they can stand each other while stuck in an igloo for 6 months of darkness? > It is no accident, after observing the discussions in net.women > about rape, that so many men can relate to the concept of: > "I raped her because she asked for it by being dressed that way" > or: > "I find the defendant not guilty of rape because of her provocation". > > The reason why so many men believe this way, is because they have > first-hand knowledge of their inability to control their own sexual > impulses and their own violent expression of their need to dominate, to > agress, as a result of testosterone taking over, and overpowering their > ability to think rationally. The testosterone poisioning referred to > in magazine articles and books (and the source of my reference to > testosterone as a poison) is simply an indication that too much > testosterone produces behavior which is not within the normal > constraints of conscious rational control or societal morals or laws. > The reason that rape is a men's issue, not a women's issue, and the > reason that only men can stop rape, is that only men are under the > influence of testosterone. But what does this imply? If men's behavior is completely dominated by testosterone, then how can any amount of social reform change this? Should all men start taking estrogen? Again, I'm still not convinced that testosterone is the main problem. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/29/85)
> It's hard to deny that hormones have some effect on mental state, but I wonder > whether you're overstating your case. Please don't take this as an attack, > Sunny, but is it possible that there is some placebo effect here? Did you > have any expectations, concious or unconcious, of the effects that hormone > changes would have on your thought patterns? Is it possible that you have > preconceived ideas about how women think, and unconciously altered your > thought patterns to meet your expectations when you started to become a woman? My only expectations were of physical changes to my body, i.e. the reason for taking them was related to my transition from male to female body characteristics. My observations of mental changes were unexpected, and are mostly of less agression/assertion/sex-obsession and more passive/peaceful/ sensuality/emotionality. > > When I said that testosterone (which is *not* a poison) clouds the > > mind, I referred to my own firsthand experience with sexual obsession and > > agressive behavior which was not within my ability to consciously control. > > I don't call estrogen a problem like I do testosterone, for the following > > reason: The behavioral patterns brought about by estrogen influence, which > > tend to be beyond conscious control, tend to be passive behavior patterns, > > and non-harmful release of emotions (crying). The behavioral patterns > > brought about by testosterone influence, which tend to get beyond conscious > > control, tend to be active/agressive behavior patterns, often leading to > > violence (or other physical agression (e.g. rape)) and harmful release of > > emotions (anger). > > This is beginning to sound like a philosophy lesson, but I don't agree that > anger is a harmful release of emotion. Anger *is* an emotion. One can > release anger by crying, or shouting, or punching, or playing basketball. > One can suppress anger instead of releasing it. Women are more likely than > men to cry when they're angry; men are more likely to resort to aggressive > behavior like verbal or physical violence. May I point out that all of > these behaviors are debilitating? That is, they make a person useless for > any kind of real action until he or she gets over it. The only use such > behaviors have (besides avoiding an ulcer) is to let the person who made > you angry know that he or she did something wrong. One doesn't usually > choose how to be angry, but each type of release is appropriate in some > situations (even physical violence). Crying gets the message across to > someone who really cares about you better than shouting does. Shouting works > better when dealing with a bully. Physical violence is OK when defending > oneself against similar violence. I believe that many women would be better > off if they learned how to be aggressively angry sometimes, and that many men > would be better off if they learned how to be non-aggressivley angry. Actually, anger is usually a defense mechanism against feeling hurt, whereas crying is a reaction mechanism to actually feeling the hurt. Crying is a cathartic process which deals with the hurt, whereas anger leaves the hurt un-dealt-with. Too much stored hurt tends to produce successively larger and larger anger/violence reactions to smaller and smaller trigger hurts. > > I'm back from my lecture now. Sunny, you lean toward attributing mental > state and behavior to physical factors, such as hormones. I'm still not > convinced that culture and upbringing don't have at least as much effect > as hormones do. For instance, strong displays of anger are uncommon > among Eskimos; is this because they have low testosterone levels, or is it > because their society has to insure that they can stand each other while > stuck in an igloo for 6 months of darkness? I know one Eskimo girl (actually a princess of her tribe) whose Eskimo father was a batterer, and left her deeply emotionally scarred with his anger and violence. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/29/85)
> In article <4@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) writes: > > > >I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. > > Well, I used to know a female to male transexual (I used to know her, but > haven't seen him since the operation). So there are transexuals in the > other direction, though from what I have heard and read it is much more > common to go male -> female rather than the other way. I've often > wondered why.. > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie There is very little understanding in both the psychological and medical communities as to the exact process of creation of transsexuality, however, it is known that all zygotes start out by default as female. Unless a specific series of differentiative events occurrs, a female is formed. At several different ages, specific developments must occur for a "real" male to be created from the default female fetus. Because of this, there is very little room for error in the creation of a "real" female, but several stages for failure in the creation of a "real" male. Thus, if even one of the differentiation stages fails for a male, we may wind up with a less than "real" male, who has more female characteristics than male with respect to the differentiation which "should" have occurred at that point. The fetus responds in-utero to hormones in its differentiation. Many kinds of birth defects are known, perhaps an early propensity to transsexuality is one of them. It is known that in times past the medical profession used to prescribe DES to prevent miscarriage... and it was later learned that daughters of mothers who took DES had congenital defects. Perhaps other hormonal abnormalities in a mother may lead to problems in the formation of a normal male. Brain differentiation is based on hormone levels in the child, producing visible differences in brain structure. Even as an adult, the sex hormones alter brain function. Differences in bone structure (pelvic/hip) are also observable at relatively early ages. I developed a wide pelvis and a waist very early, before I ever took female hormones. It is believed that these are the reasons why there are so few female-to-male transsexuals and relatively so many more male-to-female transsexuals. The development of my testicles was late, they were small, they didn't descend until late. I don't know exactly why, I've never had my hormone levels or sperm count tested. By now that's all moot. As I described in an earlier article... gender identity is formed at age 1.5 to 2, and is permanent, unchangeable. I've been taking female hormones for almost 2 years now, and adjusting my body to match what my mind tells me I am... a female. Although I tried for many years, living as a male doesn't work for me. I don't know why. My only option is adaption to my gender: female. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
clyde@reed.UUCP (Clyde Bryja) (09/03/85)
> > I'm back from my lecture now. Sunny, you lean toward attributing mental > > state and behavior to physical factors, such as hormones. I'm still not > > convinced that culture and upbringing don't have at least as much effect > > as hormones do. For instance, strong displays of anger are uncommon > > among Eskimos; is this because they have low testosterone levels, or is it > > because their society has to insure that they can stand each other while > > stuck in an igloo for 6 months of darkness? > > I know one Eskimo girl (actually a princess of her tribe) whose Eskimo > father was a batterer, and left her deeply emotionally scarred with his > anger and violence. > > (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) I have one major question regarding this: Can anyone tell me if incidents like what Sunny describes happened BEFORE the Eskimos were forced to greatly change their way of life due to the influence of our society? All of the Eskimos that I have seen were earning their living by menial labour jobs in the port of Churchill, Manitoba. Violence among these people does not (in my opinion) stain the record of traditional Eskimo culture. I admit, though, that I only know hearsay about that culture. Does anybody out there know more? Sunny, could you please tell me more about the way of life of the people you describe? Unless told otherwise, I shall assume that they are not among those (very few, as I understand) Eskimos that still live the way they all used to. I shall assume this only because that seems much more likely to me. -- +++++++++++ "For Easter Day is Christmas time, Clyde Bryja And far away is near, Box 21, Reed College And two and two is more than four, Portland, OR 97202 And over there is here."
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/04/85)
> > Can anyone tell me if incidents like what Sunny describes happened BEFORE > the Eskimos were forced to greatly change their way of life due to the > influence of our society? All of the Eskimos that I have seen were earning > their living by menial labour jobs in the port of Churchill, Manitoba. > Violence among these people does not (in my opinion) stain the record of > traditional Eskimo culture. I admit, though, that I only know hearsay about > that culture. Does anybody out there know more? > There is a fascinating book called "The White Dawn" which is the story of the disintegration of an Eskimo tribe that takes in three men from a whaling ship, as told by the only surviving member of the tribe to someone from (I think) the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a similar agency. It was also apparently made into a movie, which I have never seen in the theaters. I highly recommend it. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."