Sir Xsarus wrote:
or their brain is wired as?
That one. Trans people are not generally under any delusions about their ***.
I don't think anyone said they were.
Sorry, but I don't think I am. Gender has no meaning *unless* it's about how someone thinks or feels
versus what their physical biology is. If that's not what gender is, then what is it?
Um... Except that when *** and gender are at odds, then the last part of what I said applies. And since we're specifically speaking about that case, it's relevant. We only make a distinction between *** and gender when they don't match.
I'd also like to point out that this is precisely what I meant by "perception" versus "reality". Reality being what someone's physical body is (ie; their ***). Perception being what they think or feel (their gender). I never meant to suggest that a transgendered person actually perceives their physical body to be other than it is. The point I was making is that they don't believe that this physical state makes them "male" or "female", just as someone with an eating disorder doesn't believe that their weight and gauntness (or even near skeletalness) makes them "skinny". In their minds, they are fat, no matter what their physical body looks like. In that case "fat" no longer refers to the physical state, in the same way that "male" or "female" no longer applies to the physical state when speaking of gender.
We just don't have a separate word to use in the case of an eating disorder.
We could also say that someone who identifies themselves as female despite having male genitalia is "incorrect" in their perception of themselves as female, right? If "correct" and "incorrect" means whether their self image matches their actual physical image then a transgender is always "incorrect", just as someone who thinks they're fat when they're physically skinny is also "incorrect".
No, because transgender people simply have a gender that does not match that of most people of the same ***.
And why is that not "incorrect"? If we define incorrect to mean "someone who's mental perception of themselves doesn't match their physical selves", then it's incorrect.
We are not confused about what our *** is.
Sure. Because we've created different terms to make the distinction. One could argue that you are confused because our gender should match your ***. I really think this is just a matter of terminology. If we created two imaginary terms like "blah" and "bloh", we could say that "blah" refers to someone's physical body type, and "bloh" refers to what people think about themselves, we could then also say that someone could have a fat blah, but a skinny bloh (or vice versa). And it would be exactly as legitimate a distinction as saying someone can have a male *** and a female gender. It's circular. We created the terms in order to identify that state. The absence of terms to identify analogous states in other context does not make one more or less "correct" than the other.
You didn't answer the question. How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?
The second one.
Yet you'd help person who has a male *** and female gender change the *** to match the gender. Do you see how that's inconsistent?
Or is it more about political correctness? If a woman were obese, but viewed herself as skinny, would you applaud her for her positive attitude?