Jump to content

Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)


CuriositasEtFidem

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

A third response might be, emotional deadening, in which the boy turns off the deep reflective thinking which triggers emotional responses. This is the most common of the three responses I'm describing. 

 

5 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

He asked his son "are you a girl? You have got to toughen up. Stop acting like a sissy.  Crying and carrying on. Stop it."

The father did not deny the reality of his son's pain as it happens, for example, with a narcissist parent who denies the reality of his child's negative response (out own suppressed shame/enmeshment with own child etc.) And example of a narc behavior: a child got an injury and a parent says "you always get into croutons! - shame on you, go away." The father in your example did not deny the reality of a pain but said "look, you are boy, get over it" meaning "yes, it is painful but you are a man". (If there was a mother there instead of a father she would probably not say it and comfort the boy and this is normal; this is why in the traditional societies boys at some state would be moved into the "men world", after they got enough of motherly love to sustain them in a life; fathers' tough attitude balances mother's soft attitude.)

The dramatic outcomes you described are likely to happen if a child is being habitually denied the reality of his emotional pain (like a pain of a loss of someone etc). "If my feeling are not real then I am not real - who am I?"

Again, a major harm is done via the denial of the very reality of an emotional pain, not via its imposed way of its management.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • CuriositasEtFidem

    49

  • fides' Jack

    37

  • Peace

    34

  • little2add

    34

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For anyone interested in some well reasoned guidance on such issues, the Congregation for Catholic Education's 2019 document Male and Female He Created Them has some very nice guidance, which I will a

You say "double effect", but I hear "the end justifies the means". What the surgeon does in these circumstance is permanent mutilation to allow someone to tell a lie with their own body. I heard

There was no need to prematurely assume the worst of all of us in this regard before letting the thread take its course. I remain faithful to every teaching of the Catholic Church, felt that a warm we

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

 

The father did not deny the reality of his son's pain as it happens, for example, with a narcissist parent who denies the reality of his child's negative response (out own suppressed shame/enmeshment with own child etc.) And example of a narc behavior: a child got an injury and a parent says "you always get into croutons! - shame on you, go away." The father in your example did not deny the reality of a pain but said "look, you are boy, get over it" meaning "yes, it is painful but you are a man". (If there was a mother there instead of a father she would probably not say it and comfort the boy and this is normal; this is why in the traditional societies boys at some state would be moved into the "men world", after they got enough of motherly love to sustain them in a life; fathers' tough attitude balances mother's soft attitude.)

The dramatic outcomes you described are likely to happen if a child is being habitually denied the reality of his emotional pain (like a pain of a loss of someone etc). "If my feeling are not real then I am not real - who am I?"

Again, a major harm is done via the denial of the very reality of an emotional pain, not via its imposed way of its management.

Croutons? Are we making salad now?

Edited by Peace
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

"you always get into croutons! - shame on you, go away."

Phatmass insists on making a word "cr*ap" into "croutons". 

Edited by Anastasia
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peace said:

When I watch a good Eddie Murphy movie I laugh out loud. What other examples would you like?

Look, men generally enjoy sports more than women do. Perhaps it is because of the 20x more testosterone running through our bodies than you have. Whatever the reason is, when my GF wants to watch Fried Green Tomatoes I do not say "Hell No" because watching the movie presents a threat to my masculinity. I say "Hell No" because the movie is lame to me, I do not like it, and I would rather watch the Bulls game instead. I'm just not into that. Does me not liking this terrible movie have to be because society has programmed me to run from my emotions so as not to be feminine? Come on now.

There seems to be an unsaid assumption that you are making that if not for social programming men and women would like the same things and handle their emotions in the same way, but I don't think that is true. We are different, regardless of cultural expectations.

OK let me stop being unreasonable. It's OK for a man to cry. There are situations where that is fine.

All men have cried. I've cried. I cried when my dad died, when my mother died, when my homie got killed. But look, it's overrated. Crying ain't bringing anybody back from the dead. It ain't some magical elixir that is going to eliminate world poverty. It's not like folks need to be going out of their way to cry just because somebody ELSE thinks it would be good for them. It's like some of ya'll want a man to cry, "be vulnerable" and other such nonsense all the time, because it makes YOU feel special and it is good for YOUR emotional well being, not the man himself. I don't buy into all of that jazz. I own my emotions and I decide how I want to handle them. If I don't feel like crying on the sofa when you think I should be crying, oh well. Get over it.

Now, it could be the case that in this particular situation that the father was a bit too harsh on his son. That's his son though. It's the father's responsibility to determine when to be hard on him, and when to be more gentle with him. But he could have been wrong in that particular situation.

What I take issue with is the general notion that it is a bad thing for men to instill in other men virtues of strength, stoicism, not being overly emotive outwardly, being aggressive, assertive, and all the other things that a lot of ya'll like to refer to as "toxic" nowadays. Those are virtues that have served both men and women quite well over history, in my opinion, and I don't see anything wrong with men trying to instill those virtues in other men, whether they be considered stereotypes or not. So maybe the father in that particular instance was wrong, but I say that there are plenty of instances where it is good for fathers to tell their sons to "toughen up" and that generally it is good for men to raise their sons to be tough (and by tough I mean not crying every time you get a splinter or face some other form of adversity).

What I see developing is honestly a sort of a perverse-double standard when it comes to all of this stuff. Nowadays it seems the trend to encourage girls and women to exhibit many of the stereotypical male characteristics. Ya'll rolling around nowadays calling each other Lady Bosses and trying to "out men" men in practically every area of life. But if a man exhibits those very same traits then they are "toxic" all of a sudden. A lot of it is BS in my opinion. I don't agree with it. I don't mean it as anything personal against you though.

Most of feminism is internalized misogyny - hatred of femininity and idealization of the male pattern as normative and ideal.  So, for example, instead of encouraging men to be free to prioritize family life over business pursuits, feminists measure success by the degree to which they too can be fed completely, body and soul, into the capitalist thresher. It's extremely irritating and overly precious. I can taste the vomit rising in my throat reading "lady bosses."

To repeat,  I like masculine, manly men. There are definitely positives in trad masculinity ( assertiveness, stoicism etc) but these things aren't built up through ridicule. A good way to develop trad masculinity in the boy in my story would be to say "it hurts, but you are tough, you can get through it." 

Ultimately my point though, is that these gender roles, positive or negative, aren't the essence of what it means to be a man. There is masculinity and then there is "deep" masculinity - the cosmic significance of maleness and the male body, the truth God wanted to reveal in choosing to create 1/2 the human race this way.  Gender ideology is like blasphemy because it reduces this sacred intentionally created thing to superficial bits, like "liking sports." It's great to like sports but that's not the meaning of being a man. Our trans friend seems to suggest, put on some pantaloons a boys haircut and a name currently in fashion for males and you *are* a man. No, it doesn't work like that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Most of feminism is internalized misogyny - hatred of femininity and idealization of the male pattern as normative and ideal.  So, for example, instead of encouraging men to be free to prioritize family life over business pursuits, feminists measure success by the degree to which they too can be fed completely, body and soul, into the capitalist thresher. It's extremely irritating and overly precious. I can taste the vomit rising in my throat reading "lady bosses."

To repeat,  I like masculine, manly men. There are definitely positives in trad masculinity ( assertiveness, stoicism etc) but these things aren't built up through ridicule. A good way to develop trad masculinity in the boy in my story would be to say "it hurts, but you are tough, you can get through it." 

Ultimately my point though, is that these gender roles, positive or negative, aren't the essence of what it means to be a man. There is masculinity and then there is "deep" masculinity - the cosmic significance of maleness and the male body, the truth God wanted to reveal in choosing to create 1/2 the human race this way.  Gender ideology is like blasphemy because it reduces this sacred intentionally created thing to superficial bits, like "liking sports." It's great to like sports but that's not the meaning of being a man. Our trans friend seems to suggest, put on some pantaloons a boys haircut and a name currently in fashion for males and you *are* a man. No, it doesn't work like that. 

OK we are starting to get somewhere I think. Yeah I think you make a good argument that the essence of what it means to be a man is not merely performative. If that were the case, the transgender girl in this thread could simply "like sports" and poof become a man. But that isn't how it works.

I would agree that there is an "essence" or "substance" of being a man (or a woman) that goes beyond mere performance. Now what that "essence" is - it seems mystical I think. Can't exactly put my finger on it. But I have this sense that it is there.

But at the same time I would say that some of those performative or "stereotypical" aspects may be part of that essence or substance, or perhaps intertwined with or resulting from that substance. At least from my perspective, I think there is something about the nature of us that makes us say inherently "protective" in our performative aspects, for example. But that's not to say that woman becomes a man merely by picking up a sword and defending the castle.

Interesting thought experiment. You made your point I think.

Edited by Peace
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 9:11 PM, CuriositasEtFidem said:

The facts of the matter are that:

-I dress, walk, and speak like a man 

-I will soon be taking testosterone

-I will undergo top surgery one day (until then, I have to bind)

Taking drugs and having surgery to change one’s appearance seems (to me) to be rather icky.    Even if you change your  appearance  like you’re talking about, you will still be the same person.   


I mean life is difficult enough, as is.

 I mean no disrespect...
I have to believe that altering not only your physical appearance but your body will only make things worse for you.

you say you attend a Catholic Church regularly, have you confessed to your priest about your feelings?

 

 

Edited by little2add
Link to post
Share on other sites
CuriositasEtFidem
On 2/24/2021 at 5:17 PM, little2add said:

Taking drugs and having surgery to change one’s appearance seems (to me) to be rather icky.    Even if you change your  appearance  like you’re talking about, you will still be the same person.   


I mean life is difficult enough, as is.

 I mean no disrespect...
I have to believe that altering not only your physical appearance but your body will only make things worse for you.

you say you attend a Catholic Church regularly, have you confessed to your priest about your feelings?

 

 

Of course I'll be the same person. The outside will match a little more with the inside, if you get what I mean.

Unfortunately I'm in a very particular situation where I haven't been able to speak with a Priest yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CuriositasEtFidem 

what do you think about the questions Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raise at the Senate confirmation hearings.  


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is facing criticism for his questioning of one of President Biden’s health nominees, Rachel Levine, a former state health official who would be the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate.
Paul characterized gender-affirming care, including surgical treatments for transgender individuals, as “genital mutilation,” a description not supported by mainstream health care experts.

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
CuriositasEtFidem
50 minutes ago, little2add said:

@CuriositasEtFidem 

what do you think about the questions Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raise at the Senate confirmation hearings.  


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is facing criticism for his questioning of one of President Biden’s health nominees, Rachel Levine, a former state health official who would be the first openly transgender federal official confirmed by the Senate.
Paul characterized gender-affirming care, including surgical treatments for transgender individuals, as “genital mutilation,” a description not supported by mainstream health care experts.

 


 

Genital surgery is very dangerous, and shouldn't be attempted except for in cases of excruciating dysphoria. The story of a man who ah.... attempted to gold-plate.... his testicles... comes to mind (he died shortly after the attempt btw). If someone can die from that, how much more risky is it to reconstruct the genitals entirely? Internal bleeding and countless other complications could arise. When it comes to systems to do with waste excretion and reproduction, it's best to place a "do not mess with" sign on all of that. 

Now calling it "mutilation" may rub people the wrong way, though. 

I'm lucky in that I personally don't experience much "bottom dysphoria" as it's called, so I'd prefer not to opt for such a surgery. Would it be nice if I had been born with a different set though? Absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CuriositasEtFidem  The answer probably got lost in the heated exchanges in this thread, but my question really is what are the parameters of gender behavior that you feel you cannot express as a female?   What are the internal and or external “things” that compels you to be Transgender, not female AND who/what the person you want to be?   I’m not judging, trying to understand.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my point on soul/body dualism really should be revisited here, as from the Catholic perspective this is THE issue on the table, one that's relevant both for transgenderism and for Catholics at large who also generally have mistaken perspectives on this, a kind of ghost-in-the-machine thinking is very common especially today.  While you replied to my post that you don't see soul/body mismatch as the issue, many of the things you have said, @CuriositasEtFidem, seem to reveal such soul/body (or at least mind/body) dualistic thinking.  I can hardly blame you as this kind of mindset is so pervasive, but it is wrong, and reflecting on why it is wrong would be a helpful exercise for all of us IMO.

if you'll indulge me for being a bit semantically nit-picky on a couple phrases, I think interrogating those phrases will be revelatory of some attitudes we need to think about on this issue even if it might just be a kind of figure of speech:

the "insides don't match the outsides" phraseology I saw you use at one point in this thread is one thing--what are these insides/outsides?  is it brain chemicals and hormones that don't match the secondary sex characteristics?  I find it very hard to square that as in any way a physical disorder rather than a social mismatch between how you experience the roles you want to take in society and how society expects those secondary sex characteristics to play out socially.  and again, if it's not a physical disorder then, from a Catholic perspective, you are called to love and cultivate your body as identical with you, there is no such thing as 'you' without your body.

and then here's the other phrase "it would have been nice if I had been born with a different set".  I posit to you, based on the Catholic understanding of the unity of the body and soul, that "YOU" would not have been born at all in that case.  there is no YOU except for the united soul/mind/body that was born.   There is no "you" that could have been born with a different body, you and your body ARE the same thing.  You don't just have a body like someone has a hammer.  like a ghost inhabiting a machine.  the body you 'have' is not just something you have, despite the limits of our language where we use that possessive verb, it is YOU, and to whatever extent it is healthy you are called to accept it and cultivate it.  social gender roles are a whole separate issue that could be gotten into as well, but the recognition that you ARE your body, that there's no such thing as a distinction between you and your body, should be the starting point before moving on to any question of what particular gender role one should take in society.

of course if something is a physical disorder like cancer or a deformity you could say 'i wish i had been born without this or without that' and not be violating this anti-dualistic principle, as you'd just be talking about wishing that same body you were born with was born more healthy.  but wanting a different set of genitalia IMO is a much different thing than that--the genitalia you "have" are a part of you, they're a part of your united body-soul person.

That's the point the document I posted before from the Congregation for Catholic Education (Male and Female He Created Them)  was trying to make (I saw earlier folks like @Jaime were still suggesting that there had been no guidance on the issue doctrinally from the church, perhaps my post was missed, as I attached the file of the document it tells me only 2 ppl downloaded it and probably one of those was me checking if i'd uploaded the right file lol, but maybe ppl googled it :P... anyway while that's not necessarily the most authoritative document it does seem magisterial in an ordinary way and should be a jumping off point for exploring what the doctrines being intersected by this issue really are rather than needing to resort to an analogy to church teachings on homosexuality).  That document was trying to make its doctrinal criticism of transgender ideology on the grounds of condemning that kind of problematic dualism.  perhaps you state you don't think of it that body/soul dualistic way, @CuriositasEtFidem, but in some other ways you seem to reveal that kind of thinking as lurking beneath the surface of your experience.  the typical narratives around how to interpret the experience of dysphoria are deeply rooted in such dualism, actually, though materialists who don't believe in souls replace the word "soul" with the word "mind" they are meaning largely the same thing--both rejecting the real sense in which your whole body IS you, for the platonic-style dualist the REAL you is your soul, for the modern materialistic dualist the REAL you is your brain/mind; but BOTH are wrong--the real you is the holistic mind-body-soul person.  you can't separate out one and say it's the real you and it's mismatched to one of the other parts, as they're interdependent, they don't exist apart from one another in that way.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...