From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:25:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.000702.1230@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.232242.2352@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>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.
>
>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.
 
I stated what I understood to be your position. If it is not that that
social conditioning is the significant factor in the choices men and women
make, I do not know what it is.

Even if I did incorrectly state your position (unintentionally), this in
no way justifies your doing the same to my position. I have never, ever,
stated that all decisions were 100% biologically based, nor have I implied
this. I have merely stated that there are enough differences that there
is no basis for assuming 50/50 splits in man/woman choices.

And I see no reason why your publically posted opinion need not be brought
up if relevant to the topic. And it is.

If I say 'other posters', rini will jump in and ask for references, and
you may well respond back for other reasons in the negative. Vague references
have not proved useful here in the past (perhaps you recall?).

>>>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.  

This is because I have never claimed 100% biology, why should I try to
explain something I do not believe to be true, and have no reason to believe?
I do believe that it is a real non-social factor however.

>                                                          But it looks like
>neither of us wants to take a 100% stance, so this means nothing.

I did believe your initial statements to be a 100% social conditioning
argument. Was it? 
 
>>>>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 yet to blame anybody for anything, except misrepresenting my position.
And I suspect your career of guessing what choices I would make to be
rather unsuccessful from the above and your other posts.

And I do not recall a post such as you describe. Perhaps it was posted in
soc.men or soc.women, or in some other group.
 
>>>I have problems understanding why you can't see these simple possibilities.
>>
>>No, you have problems seeing through your preconceptions.
>
>Specifically?

That we disagreed led you to assert that I was making a 100% biology
argument. 
 
>>>>-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 [wealthy] 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.

You mean the charity you -surmised-? And as for the rest, I mentioned the
independantly wealthy above (note, I omitted the [wealthy], added back in for
clarity), and the other was simply not addressed, not ignored or denied.
But how long would it take you to save up a few 100K bucks? At this rate,
I would be old enough to forget the operation before I could afford it.
And I suspect most not independantly wealthy would do no better alone.
But there are always options like personal loans, bank loans (how would a
loan officer assess the risk? :^), or selling of a house.

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


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4495 soc.men:19345