From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.020553.24544@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>[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.

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.

>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?
 
>>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?

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

No, you have problems seeing through your preconceptions.
 
>>-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?

>"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism