From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:05:53 GMT

[Some time before I got to it, someone [Janice?] else was deleted.]

In article <1992Nov17.191024.22626@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>-
>-In article <1992Nov16.185735.25510@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>->Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) 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.
2.  We were arguing [note past tense] about pornography, not about all these
other things.


>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
b.  the social conditioning received by Wendy assigned a sexual identity not
consistent with her physical body.

I have problems understanding why you can't see these simple possibilities.

>-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.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban