+3 votes
in Comics & Animation by


7 Answers

+1 vote

Heck, they can portray "Elsa" as a transgender former male Olympic decathlon champion, for all I care.

I didn't go to see "Frozen," and I won't see "Frozen 2" either.

+1 vote

I think that would be an interesting story and something really new.

+1 vote

That is kind of making the LGBT community a gimmick doesn't it?


Why not?   Disney wouldn't be the first.


Just because the POTUS does it doesn't mean it's acceptable.  I have an aunt who is a lesbian and believe they deserve equal rights, not placed on a pedestal.  

Obama is one his last legs as president so he doesn't have to care about public opinion anymore, he does what he thinks is right- now.  Personally, I believe that switching what bathroom you use should come after the surgery when you've gone through the process and can prove you're dedicated to it, which would prevent any real looki-loos that everyone is so scared of.


Not much of what this POTUS does is acceptable, since it is driven mostly by ideology rather than by law.

Your view of when trans-sexuals should use the bathroom of of their (new) gender is sensible, although I would hope that in these cases, all psychiatric avenues of treatment had been exhausted before resorting to such drastic surgery.


I'm sure you've been able to tell by now that I myself am a liberal, a democrat. Lol.  I don't hide my political views.

I do not believe sexuality or gender identifications are a psychosis.  It's there from birth and it's been studied.  I don't have any idea if it's really genetic or not, I'll guess it's a hormonal thing.  If it is genetic, it doesn't mean it'd be bred out.  If that were true we wouldn't have things like sickle cell or Huntington's or other genetic disorders that can kill their host , (which would make them less likely to have offspring).  NO, I'm not calling homosexuality a disease.  It's not, but you get my point right?

Anyways, if it is genetic, that's that.  If it's hormonal it could still be before birth, even in the womb.  It could be both, genes effect hormones and hormones effect genes.  An example would be male pattern baldness. Yes, a man may have the gene, but he needs high levels of testosterone for it to express.  And hormones are determined by genes.  

Biology is crazy right!!:):D

I don't see it as  a disability but like disabilities it should be accommodated,  that's why their's ramps on the curbs.


While it's true that hormones and genes may well play a role, psychiatric and behavioral disorders are by no means ruled out.  And if it is hormonal, then there may be a hormonal treatment to be discovered.  If, for example, the hormones were the mother's, acting in utero, then I'm quite sure most mothers would opt for treatment, if one existed, to prevent their baby from being born with gender identity disorder.  To my mind, effective hormone therapy would be a far, far better solution than drastic surgery and sterility.


It's so strange that on such a controversial topic you and I can just talk.  So few people keep cool like this.:)

Until they figure out the cause,  who's to say.  Plus,  you still hear those claims that gender and sexuality are fluid.  Not really sure what to say about that one:ermm:

All I know is that sexuality does not mean sterility.  My aunt, who's gay, married a woman who had a kid from a previous marriage to a man.  No,  her wife is not bi, she's lesbian.  How'd that happen?  It was in the years where she was pressured by society and still not to terms with herself.  No this doesn't mean gay is a choice, it just means who you have sex with is a choice.  She gave her body to a man and was not satisfied with it.  And so her daughter was born.  A child she does not regret.

Similar stories happen with gay men and gay women, they somehow have children.  So sterility is not an issue, especially with today's new abilities for this.  If you meant Gender transfer surgery,  I understand what you mean.  I do not have all the answers about these things and I don't think anyone does, not even those who have it.  But adoption and surrogacy is always an option for a sterile couple in a relationship.


No, I was talking about transgenders, of course, and having a sex-change operation. Lesbians and gays are another topic entirely, in that I think very few of them believe they are in the wrong physical body.

But on the subject of gender identification, when (if ever) do you think it becomes a delusion?  And suppose someone thinks he is a cat (i.e., an otherkin)? Do we just shrug and say, "Well, as long as he doesn't harm anyone, who are we to try to disabuse him of his belief?"


I've never heard the term "otherkin" but I have heard of furries.  I would guess that that identity part of the brain would be in a different location than the gender part.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were people special and genderly confused at the same time. 

I'm sure at some point, if the identity issue gets in the way of your ability to function (as a human being) or gets in the way of your social life, work life, health or whatever aspect of your life, it is considered a disease.  And not all diseases make the person eligible for disability as some it's up to the person to figure out how they want to handle it - like alcoholism.

As gender transfers are still capable of maintaing all aspects of their life in check, I don't see how it could be a disease as there is nothing dis-eased about it.  In fact, the surgery and hormone therapy involved int he process would be considered the cure for the only thing that is feeling wrong in their life.


I don't think it really matters what part of the brain these disorders may arise in, they may be caused by different hormones or different genes, or perhaps some other aspect of body chemistry.

I don't think your take on gender identity disorder not being a disease is really tenable. As you say, the "cure" for it requires a major operation and lifelong hormone therapy. How is the therapy part any different in principle from that of a diabetes patient who requires insulin therapy for the rest of his life? Isn't diabetes a disease?


That's a good point.  But instead of thinking they were born with a bad brain,  why not think of them as born with the wrong body?

Surprisingly,  some transgenders are actually born with the other gender's chromosome set (XX, XY) and there body did not develop that gender (because of the hormone expression).


It seems to me that whichever is "wrong", body or brain, the treatment should focus on which therapy is most effective.

We know that the treatment of the body entails major surgery (with possible nerve damage that might reduce or preclude normal sexual function, in addition to sterility) and lifelong hormone therapy.

On the other hand, if there were a hormonal or other chemical treatment that would change the brain to match the body gender, without damaging other brain functions, then that option would be far preferable, in my opinion.

As for XX or XY individuals whose bodies don't develop to match their chromosomal gender, it seems to me they need hormone therapy from childhood on, both to suppress the "wrong" hormone and to enhance the "right" one. Otherwise they will be sterile.


The XX XY incorrect expression thing isn't caught THAT early for any kind of early treatment like you are trying.

Plus,  Just because a surgery might be more or less major, doesn't mean it's more or less correct to do.


Well, the XX XY incorrect expression surely must show up by early puberty, yes?  I have heard of pubescent children receiving hormone therapy because their primary and secondary sex characteristics weren't developing properly, or is that a different condition?

In trans-gender treatment, the major surgery and hormone therapy try to make the body into something that it genetically simply is not.  A brain in an XY body is a genetically male brain, even if it "feels" itself to be female because of, say, a hormonal imbalance.

It seems to me self-evident that a hormonal or other chemical treatment (if one were to be discovered) that corrects what the brain "feels" to match its chromosomes, would be much superior to a treatment that forces the body into a mismatch with its chromosomes.


The incorrect expression shows up before birth even.  Genitals are quite easy to notice aren't they.


In that case, why doesn't treatment start immediately, contrary to what you said, two posts up?

"The XX XY incorrect expression thing isn't caught THAT early for any kind of early treatment like you are trying."

And since you said nothing about my points regarding the superiority of treating the brain vs treating the body for gender mismatch, I assume you agree.


I didn't comment on your other stuff because it's akin to brainwashing and we would never agree on anything.  I thought it was better left unsaid.

Nothing I said contradicted myself.  No one tests a baby's genetics for what gender it is supposed to be,  they just look at what's between the legs and say "Congratz, it's a (boy,girl)"  Why would they start treating it for something they don't look for?  What you're saying is ridiculous. "OH let''s pump this baby with hormones before it's even pubescent and when we haven't even looked at it's genes to know if anything isn't expressed!"  Makes zero sense.

Are you a mother?  Was it his genes or his genitals you looked at?

*That last sentence,  *his* is just simpler than his/her.


Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you saying that there can be, for example, people with normal XX chromosomes, but who nevertheless (due to some hormonal irregularity) have a penis and testicles that are visually indistinguishable from those of a normal XY person? And if that is what you are saying, do you have a reference you would provide?

As for the alleged "brainwashing," it's not brainwashing at all, just elementary logic, but I'll get back to it later. I think we'd do better to deal with one topic at a time.



As it says: Not all cases are stereotypical.  XX Male.  And while most of Wiki is untrustable, the sources are listed at the bottom of the page.


Several points the article makes:

1. One of the X chromosomes contains the SRY gene normally attached to a Y chromosome, so it is not a case of normal XX chromosomes.

2. The testicles of such individuals are usually underdeveloped, something an alert pediatrician should pick up in the individual's childhood. 

3. The people in question are invariably sterile.

4. The article characterizes XX males as mostly "typical boys and men," which I take to mean most of them are not transgender.

5. The condition affects about 4 or 5 in 100,000 people, so it is rare, much rarer that the 3 in 1000 who certain polls say are transgender.


In contrast, most transgenders have normal chromosomes, and are not sterile, but just psychologically feel they are of the opposite gender.

Since such individuals have a perfectly well functioning body, it would make no sense to me to mutilate such a body if psychological treatments were available to correct the delusion that they are of another gender.

This is much the point of view taken by Paul McHugh, the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins (where gender-reassignment surgery was pioneered, but abandoned after 10 years, because it wasn't solving the patients' problems).



The article did say that not all have those small testes.  And the sterility part,  how the hell are you gonna know if a baby is sterile?  All babies are sterile.  Duh.

And the page I posted said it had to do with the overlapping of the XX chromosomes rather than mentioning the SRY chromosome.  

And why are you assuming this is one of the ONLY things that contributes to transgender numbers?

Again, as it goes to "treatment",  you and I already have expressed we have different opinions.  I will not continue that line of this convo because it's not going anywhere.  It'd be awful tedious even though I do enjoy seeing it from your point of view,  somehow you make such a tense topic nonthreatening.

Whatever the case is,  there isn't a lot of information as it comes to transgender people yet,  and it's not like either of us are actually geneticists or whatever job it is that looks into this stuff.  Probably that kind of information will come  in the next few years.


"The article did say that not all have those small testes."

The article said they USUALLY DO have small testes, which is exactly what I said.

"And the sterility part,  how the hell are you gonna know if a baby is sterile?  All babies are sterile.  Duh."

Of course all babies are sterile. What is different in the case of XX males is that they are sterile as ADULTS, unlike the vast majority of transgenders.

"And why are you assuming this is one of the ONLY things that contributes to transgender numbers?"

I did NOT assume this is one of the only things that contributes to transgender numbers -- quite the opposite in fact; the number of XX males is only a tiny fraction of the number of transgenders (something on the order of 1%), and even less than that because most XX males aren't transgender at all, in that most of them act like "typical males," according to your article.

"Again, as it goes to "treatment",  you and I already have expressed we have different opinions.  I will not continue that line of this convo because it's not going anywhere.  It'd be awful tedious even though I do enjoy seeing it from your point of view,  somehow you make such a tense topic nonthreatening."

The only reason it's a "tense" topic is that politicians on both sides have, for their own cynical purposes, made it one. And frankly, I don't know why your mind is so closed on the subject. If someone were to demonstrate to me that an effective psychiatric treatment would not be better than drastic physical surgery and lifelong hormone treatment, I would change my mind.

BTW, the article by the Johns Hopkins psychiatrist that I linked above did not appear in complete form. If you are interested, you can access the whole article by Googling

Paul McHugh: Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution - WSJ

and clicking on the first hit.


The reason I said a lot of what you later quoted was because you kept mentioning early detection of XX males and to start early treatment.  So yeah,  my sterile baby part made complete sense.  I don't see how your retort at all mattered - after all, it was very obvious.

I think this conversation is over.  If you're unsatisfied, o well,  I'm done with it because it isn't going anywhere.


It isn't going anywhere because your mind seems to be closed on the topic.

Read the McHugh article I referenced and refute it if you can.


Anyone can say the other's mind is closed on a topic.  Even if I read the article,   confirmation bias and cognitive bias are still a thing.  Not saying I necessarily would do that but, it's really stupid of someone to suggest another's mind is closed when their's might be also.  Get my drift?

Now, please,  shut up.  We're done here anyhow.


Yep, anyone can say the other person's mind is closed, but in my case I'd be right, since I gave cogent reasons for my point of view, something you signally failed to do.

Heck, you wouldn't even read an article with an opinion differing from yours (much less refute it), so I'll leave it to any fair-minded person who might read this to decide for themselves just whose mind is closed.

0 votes

I have no problem with it.

0 votes

I'd be impressed

0 votes

Sure why not 

0 votes

Nope.  I don't really care what orientation fictional characters are.  Hell, I don't care what orientation real people are.

Is this page not working?

Click here to see the recent version of this page