This girl competing is a pretty controversial issue. I totally understand the argument that a man is born with a certain set of chromosomes and a woman with an opposing set... but at the same time this person now has all the sexual organs of a woman and genuinely identifies herself as such... I'd rate her an 8.5 which is more impressive than most girls, and she wasn't even born as one. I would never knowingly engage in a relationship with a transgendered person, but that is just a personal decision. Don't be too prejudiced man... no one likes a bigot.
Thanks for spoiling my trap anyways at this generation i don't think we are ready yet to accept transgender individuals into the gender they identify with. I don't know maybe if science becomes more advanced and produce a complete sex change but they will always be labeled as an anomaly now. Like you said you would never knowingly engage in a relationship with a transgendered individual, we are definitely not as open minded and accepting as we think we want to be. Anyways will update title and add article as this is already spoiled. Btw the face palm was directed at you Canadians not her! And if not given second picture i wouldn't be able to identify her as having any male resemblance
I personally don't see why she should be allowed to compete in a competition of who is the top female when her sex is really male. It's not prejudice or anything it's the same way you wouldn't have a show dog in the best cat competition. Gender wise she can be feminine as much as she wants but to enter a competition that emphasizes the female sex; she just doesn't belong. I don't have anything against transgenders, just got to see from the point of the competition.
oh my fucking god somehow in my mind there is a image of a penis erecting from a vagina while I was trying hard to penetrate That vagina I think its wrong, they should just stick to going to ladyboy pageants
So you can basically lie about things and get away with it... I see can where our society is heading to...
I beg to differ; "she" does not have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, nor a real vagina. The created vagina fails to have any natural physiologic glandular secretions and is reliant on application of lubricants in order simulate a vaginal environment. To be sure, the surgically rearranged pelvic anatomy may look and even feel convincing, but it's remains an artifice and is not genuine. Whether a man likes a trans-woman, or for that matter, prefers another man, is a totally different question. It isn't about prejudice, but rather clinical definitions.
I'm seriously going out on a limb here, but I thought peoples gender were decided based on their genitals, from a legal point of view no? Genitals being the external organs.
I agree with Jelly on this point. On matters like this, we can debate to the end of time as to whether something is or is not something else. The question is where the line should be drawn in terms of definition. It's like whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit; we can continuously argue for or against, however for the sake of moving on, a set of conditions need to be drawn. What if a woman was born with a lack f uterus, fallopian tubes, or born with a penis? Where do we draw the line that she is a woman, not a man? So in this pageant's case, I guess the law defines a woman as having a vagina (obvious oversimplification), real or reconstructed.
I respectfully disagree; the difference I see is in the word reconstructed versus manufactured. In cases of injury or health related events, reconstruction is a restorative process. Manufacture of a imitation component, no matter the degree of technical elegance (in my mind at least), remains a process that culminates in an imitation and is not real. I agree with your point too, that one may argue the distinction between Genotype and Phenotype representations until the cows come home. In the case of a genotype female being exposed to extraordinarily high testosterone levels during fetal development, rendering a phenotype male (ie chromosomal female born with male genitalia), or the converse, where a genotype male has been developmentally rendered as a female (chromosomal male with apparent female genitalia); IMHO, they're not really real men or women either, even as they're (as the phrase goes), "born that way." They clinically fall within the category of those that are sexually ambiguous, as their genitalia remain, in essence, a product of their birth defect; ie their in utero exposure to chemical influences (in this case, sexualizing hormones) that inappropriately caused their genital developmental pathway to be mistakenly led down a road that nature did not intend. So, are they a normal man or woman? The clinical answer remains strictly, no. As for a woman who lacks certain body parts as related to a process of disease or misfortune, she is still arguably a woman, albeit one that had suffered a life altering defect. This has been traditionally recognized as there had been plenty of women who have previously had hysterectomies (removal of the uterus) and or salpingo-oopherectomies (removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries). Few would offer that these individuals are no longer a woman. No one would ever think to call them a man as they started out as a woman who was later physically damaged or altered in some way. Some have even had vaginal reconstruction as a result of horrific accidents. On the other hand, taking a man and removing his genitals and creating a female sexual artifice is not a restorative process. The only exception to this would be if a genotype woman who was mistakenly developmentally driven towards a male genital pathway (by in utero hormonal exposure), then had reconstructive surgery to restore an artificial vagina; then yes, that would be a woman albeit she would have an artificial and not a real vagina. That being said, one too, should examine how definitions themselves are arrived at to fully appreciate that often, profoundly sensitive and emotional political considerations do intrude. For example, the recent argument regarding the meat product, Pink Slime, in which beef scraps and unused byproducts, are pulverized, chemically treated, reconstituted, then frozen, to be mixed later with other ground meat; should we consider that as 'real' beef? Well, that obviously depends upon one's political and or economic point of view. Again, while I admit that as such, it is a very clever ersatz; in my mind it remains an imitation as beef does not exist in nature that way. Likewise, in this gender reality question, there are admittedly plenty of sensitive and often profound emotions that can and do cloud the picture. People more often want certain results as a measure of how they feel that an answer should be, and certainly not as an indication of any considered scientific analysis. Be that as it may then, in the realm of future science fiction, here's some food for thought: the what ifs that might occur would involve genital transplantation or genetic sexual reassignment. Would those then be considered real either? In other words, a man is given a cadaveric vagina transplant (much like we harvest other organs now), or has his cellular genetic signature rewritten as xx female; would society consider that to be 'woman' enough? Heady stuff indeed, eh?
there's a difference between gender and sex... sex is biological, male/female/intersex/etc while gender is social/psychological/what have you, man/woman/androgynous/etc you can be born male and have the gender identity of a woman. IMHO just because you were born with physical body parts that you can't relate to doesn't mean you should be viewed as any less a woman i think she's hot and *shrugs* i don't have a problem with her identifying herself as a woman is it really other people's business to tell her whether or not what she feels to be true about her identity is false? identity is such a personal thing...
Yes, my mistake on my choice of terminology. Manufactured is indeed the correct term for this scenario. However I think LG points out a good distinction: LG if I recall, your expertise is in microbiology? Having said that, I guess though the scientific definition of whether a being is a man or a woman is different, it might be too complex for legal purposes (?), so they needed to oversimplify the definition...
