Third Sex or Female

[Guest]

In all the books I'm reading, I'm finding that there is somewhat of a divide between opinions on what gender transsexuals are.

One camp says they are women, mainly the Western (USA, Europe) camp, where, cut the dick, and they're a woman.

The other camp, more Asian, says they are neither men or women, they are a mix of both, and are the best of both. In Native American Indian, continental India, and even ancient Buddhism and Islam, TS were revered because they had the best of both genders.

The even more aggressive academics say there should be no gender at all, because as soon as you peg someone in a square (man, woman, or even Third Sex), you given them steretypes and prejudices, and the objective should be neither of these, so a 'no gender' society is the ideal.

I used to really push the idea that Ladyboys are women. I'm now starting to think, no, they are a Third Sex (or no sex), with the best of both worlds. And some have 90% woman, 10% man, and all percentages in-between too.

What do you think?

[PigDogg]

(ziggystardust @ Jun. 10 2006,23:34) and all percentages in-between too.

I like the no gender society Zig.

[stogie bear]

The spectrum of sexuality is infinite and there are as many sexualities as there are faces on the planet.

Academics know as much about this stuff as I know about atomic fission!

Dump the books and get down to Nana!

[Guest]

I'm kind of with Stogie on this one.

As a philosopher, I support linguistic analysis only to the degree that it helps clarify specificity in arguments and logic. Words mean things, and confusion leads to problems in philosophical arguments.

Beyond that, unlike most modernists, I don't believe that linguistic analysis actually *gives you* any new information. There is nothing to be found in dissection the language, we are in effect simply deciphering our own artifacts.

Beyond linguistic analysis, you must rely on Reason and Real World Truth.

The question I would ask is where do the answers to these questions get us? I'm not trying to put down Ziggy, generally I like when he does his thing. But in this case, I'm not sure that even if we "solve" the answer to the question... where does that get us?

This reminds me of those who try to argue either that homosexuality is genetic or that it is a choice, because they believe by finally finding definate proof, that it will solve their particular side of the argument for them. I can assure you for (1) There is no single answer, and (2) Even if there were, it would not end debate. You will not find practical answers in this type of question.

My feedback would be to ask: What are you working towards? What are you really trying to accomplish, or understand?

It seems to me you are evaluating buying a house, but you are getting caught up in arguing over exactly what to call the color of the kitchen wallpaper.

[dummy_plug]

In your experience Ziggy, what do most ladyboys see themselves as? I find that most, at least in my limited interaction, will say they are the best of both worlds. I think if you ask a ladyboy who a man should choose as his partner, a woman or a ladyboy, and they will answer ladyboy every time. Sure, there's an obvious bias, but when you ask them why they say ladyboys are better. They'll give a variety of reasons, some BS and some that make sense - but it will usually boil down to an argument that ladyboys possess everything a lady has but has some aspects of a man that a guy will appreciate. Like I said, this is the response you'd expect a ladyboy to give, but I genuinely feel its because they believe it.

[Torurot]

>>I'm now starting to think, no, they are a Third Sex (or no sex), with the best of both worlds.>>

I don't see how you can say "no sex", perhaps "ambiguous sex" in the the sense of male/female dichotomy, but not "no or none".

Perhaps it would help to look at the plant kingdom for some ideas on this.

The recently deceased University of Canterbury (NZ) Professor David Lloyd (Fellow of the Royal Society of London) pioneered the concept of plant gender and was the foremost authority of the evolution of plant sexual systems, with many benchmark papers in evolutionary ecology and plant reproductive biology. A quick Google might bring up some ideas.

[Guest]

I don't agree grunyen.

Because in this case, academics are pushing an agenda that will determine laws, social policies, etc. So linguistics are very important.

Let me give a real example. In the US, transsexuals were lumped in to the gay community. So there are gay program for AIDS, mental support, kids. There were none for transsexuals. Now they recognize TS as a distinct gender, so there are the starts for programs for TS. Gov't funding goes to recognized groups also.

Ok, so we have maybe 3. So what about the poor bugger who is biological male, kind of feels female, but wants to dress like a guy and is not gay? Pretty common person I'd think. Does he move himself into the gay or TS camp? Which group does he call for therapy?

So, I'm somewhat in favor of removing the term gender. It conotes separation and not continuity.

Finally, in English the language used for gender variants is not very rich, basically, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender. In other languages, including Thai, there are about 5 flavors of gay, and 5 of each of the others, meaning, the language inherently supports more of a "continuity".

So language is very important, as is classification (or not) on how the general society thinks and the programs and laws it puts in place.

[Guest]

The advantage of so-called third sex is that it enlarges the space of possibilities from the bi-polar continuum of male-female only to a triangular set of three vertices male-female-3rd sex. Sadly, we are not comfortable with ambiguity, and fluidity, so we gravitate (even force ourselves) to the poles or, perhaps, to one the vertices. In the latter case, we close the universe and lose the advantage of having the open set of possibilities.

If we are discussing personal understanding and knowledge, then I would agree with Grunyen's critique of language; there is little to be gain in discussing words in and of themselves, when it is knowledge (personal or otherwise) that we are after. If we are discussing politics and social priorities and predjudices, then I agree with Ziggy that the words matter a lot. Afterall, in the US context, the category "gay" is much less a function of empirical truth that it is a function of politics. All categories cut two ways: even the multiplicity of categories for "gay" found in Thai language have pointed political and social consequences. Categories are good when they open the universe, and as long as we don't don't reify them into rigid Platonic Truths. (Of course, I think Plato only meant to do a "genetic" analysis, and it is we who rejected the real world in favor of his perfect forms.)

[Guest]

The theoretical view that labels should not be applied is exactly that, in my opinion, theoretical.

Humans need words to describe things and each other.

So I think labels are needed whether we like it or not.

At the moment, "Intersex" is being used to refer to non-male, non-female, normative people, although there are actually 16 types of intersex people.

I don't know what's right here, but I'd suggest possibly several lables, versus bundling everyone in to The Third Sex or Intersex or some variant thereof. For example, I'd like a label for me. A Ladyboy love who does not like gay men. I don't want to be called gay, bisexual, but still recognize heterosexual is a slight stretch (although that is how I feel).

[Guest]

Very interesting comments by these persons who live as ladyboys and experience what others only can presume. The words that are used to label Ladyboys seem arbitrary to me and even vague.....trans, intersexed, whatever. I think they are the ones who should define themselves since they are the ones who know how they feel in the world as it exists for them.

[Guest]

A rose by any other name ...

Indeed, what is the true Platonic form of a ladyboy?

In all seriousness, can I be a wuss and say you're both right? It seems to me that you (Grunyen and Ziggy) are perhaps discussing two different things: gender politics and philosophical theory. That's not to say that one doesn't relate to the other ... but in this case each of your points seem to be tangential to the other. That said, I essentially agree with both of you. But then I got a B for the quarter in logic, so what do I know? My brain still hurts when I think of the proofs on the final exam for that class ...



Anyway, just to add to everything else that's been said, I think it's worth broaching this subject if for no other reason that the discussion that has ensued. It's worthwhile to ponder these things, if nothing else. I didn't really expect to find this sort of thing in the AsianTs message board. Pretty cool.



As for the Platonic form of a ladboy, I can think of a few names ...

[Guest]

Just to put in my ten cents worth - most LBs in my experience, and here I'm referring to those who speak english, refer to them selves using female pronouns (she, her etc) and quite a lot get quite upset at the thought of sex with a GG the "I no lesbian" quote being the usual comment. Needless to say some have no such qualms and others will do anything if the price is right.

How people perceive others is really just a sham. I often have to work near to Bayswater in London which is a centre of LB activity and have sat drinking coffee in Starbucks with what the other customers will have thought of as an attractive girl - and I wonder how many would be shocked to find out the truth.

I suppose to fall back on a slightly edited cliche - I don't know much about philosophy but I know what I like.

cheers