Which layout option do you want to use?
Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.
It mainly sucks in the Western sphere because these guys are morons and somehow managed to fall from being privileged men to stupid beta males XDDD
Are you a descendant of pharaohs
Who knows? While I am Egyptian, I never got a DNA test or did some kind of ancestry/lineage exploration.
Denying gender = 'I am a man, but could we make me not be one?' No, you can't. Got a 'Y'? You're a guy.
Okay, let's address this unfortunately high number of suicidal ideation in trans folks.
Suicidal ideation, in research, is a more critical construct for its predictive power for suicidal attempts.
It is also unfortunately the case that research on suicide risk among trans folks is meager as one brief literature review article comments:
Source: Suicide Risk Among Transgender People: A Prevalent Problem in Critical Need of Empirical and Theoretical Research
However, there is still research. One research study shows an interesting finding:
Source: Predictors of Suicidal Ideation in a Statewide Sample of Transgender Individuals
The same study proposes this explanation:
Also, to credit@GripMaxxing, the study DOES affirm there are higher SI in FtM individuals than MtF:
The statistics is in the paper, by the way. The statistics is presented in a table so I didn't bother copying it here since it would take too much space.
I would get into the discussion and the theoretical perspectives that the literature review article provided but I feel this is getting too lengthy and I am afraid I am putting too much effort for someone that, at least in my opinion, does not show much enthusiasm in actually engaging with this. So instead, I will dump this part because it addresses something you said earlier:
But the brief literature review article says:
This is in the "Correlates of suicide ideation".
Now, "potentially" does some lifting there, I admit, but you can now see why people not being "themselves" is not enough. It's not JUST the confirmation, but also the discrimination and violence they experience as a result of transitioning. The statement above shows that "gender identity acceptance and disclosure" is a potentially protective factor against suicidal ideation, and THAT makes sense.
Edit: forget to add a little tidbit addressing another point you made
That's what I found too, straight from the oft-quoted 41% study. But both are still really high.Also, to credit
Your framing is so weird. You seem to put a LOT of emphasis on "make me NOT one". Wouldn't it be more like, "I am being perceived as a man, but I want to be perceived as a woman because I identify as one"?
I'm trying not to get into 4-chan level memes about 'identity' here, but I do think that is the disconnect.
I have to ask you, and you will have to humor me here, the cliche question: what is "gender" to you? Do you use it synonymous-ly with "biological sex"?
It's worth defining.
Since both "gender" and "biological sex" are synonymous to you, would this then be an appropriate definition of "gender" and "biological sex" for you?
Source: Sex - Wikipedia
Quite honestly, this is irrelevant to me. I do not care if modern understanding of "gender" is not even a century old. I do not judge understanding or frameworks based on their longevity and neither do you. Why? Because this is false:
You are essentially suggesting that this is a modern idea, when it is not. Demonstrably so:
Source: Metamorphoses Book IX
You said I'm wrong but put forth a different idea. I never said there were no stories of someone of one gender/sex pretending to be the other: dressing that way, using those pronouns, etc. We used to call them transexuals or transvestites, but I'm sure terms existed before that as well. The idea that you could actually change your gender by behaving this way is the modern invention.
Your gamete definition is fine.
You are super close, but I don't think we'd ever see eye to eye on that unless we make the "gender" thing clear.
Close, but what always comes up in these discussions is the 1/1000 exceptions. Someone born with a genetic defect: X only, XXY, etc. (It's silly to bring those exceptions in, but it always happens.)
No, it's not silly to bring up exceptions. They are important to stress test current understanding of things. That's how science works all the time and that's why we've reached this level of technology and advancement today. You are right to bring up such exceptions.
Basically, but I'm not saying anyone with a Y is "essentially" a male. They are male.
I don't know the difference between saying "they are essentially male" and "they are male". English is not my first language (if it has not been evident this whole time XD). My fault for causing confusion.
I wasn't sure if I should address this but didn't want to make it seem like I was ignoring you.
At this point, I am compelled to ask: are you using this definition as a social category or are you using it strictly as a biological definition for "male"? Or is "male" and "man" identical to you and a social category doesn't actually exist in your view?
Ooooh. I think I get it now. So, "it's chicken" is just, well, chicken, whereas "it's essentially chicken" is like saying "Well, it's not exactly chicken but you might as well say it is".
Ykw? That does make sense. There are indeed exceptions to humans being "bipedal" but I suppose it would not matter when scientists are saying that. Fair enough.
Hmm, but I feel like something is missing here. Or at least I feel like it contradicts my perspective.
But then, once again, I do not see how your definition of man, which if I recall correctly was any person who possesses a functional SRY gene in their Y chromosome, actually works in practice. I feel like your definition of man is not actually descriptive at all of how society typically uses the word. Not in the Western sphere, not in the Arab world (as an Arab, I can say that much), not in the African sphere, and not in the Asian sphere.
