A little you say? You lack the one chromosome that defines a man. I wouldn't treat you any differently, but your genetic makeup, your natural identification card, shows that you are a woman.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He is using man in the context of gender and legal sex, I would assume. Not chromosomes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

ANY less means he would be no different at all to someone born male. He may have been a man trapped in a woman's body, making his spirit male, but his body will forever have the blueprints of a woman, so in that small (one DNA molecule) way, he is less of a man.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

His biological sex would be considered female until measures were taken to correct that. His gender however, is and has always been male. Gender and sex are two very different beasts. But no, a man is only what he presents himself to be, if the op presents as male then he is male.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Both gender and sex are divided into male and female, but they mean different things. You must be the same in both to be 'completely' male or female. It is impossible to change replace an X chromosome in every single cell with a Y because there a billions if not trillions of cells in his body. I define a man as someone with a Y chromosome in every nucleus and shows himself to be a man, gay or straight. Once you show yourself to be a woman, your gender changes, but your sex does not, so you are not wholly a woman. The reverse also applies. He should not be treated as any less of a man, because he is a man where it matters, but not in everything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Reread my comment. In the terms of gender and legal sex, as I stated, he would not be any less of a man. And he himself stated he would be different so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your gender has nothing to do with your sexual organs or chromosomes, and legal sex can be changed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I define a man as someone with a Y chromosome in every nucleus and shows himself to be a man, gay or straight. Once you show yourself to be a woman, your gender changes, but your sex does not, so you are not wholly a woman. The reverse also applies. He should not be treated as any less of a man, because he is a man where it matters, but not in everything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Do you dna test every male you come into contact with? I would assume not. I'm sure that there are many men in your life who you have taken at their word that are male. I also assume you do not check genatalia. Unless you saw paperwork telling you what the dna of the op was id bet that you would assume he was male if that's what he looks/sounds/acts like. How does that make him less than any random man that you come into contact with everyday? You're being picky about a fact that you would never look into for every man you meet. You could have come into contact with numerous people that you consider men who may not fit your criteria.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Please note that I said that I don't treat the differently because they are male where it makes any real difference, but just not in everything. Also, I'm 16, so all my friends are underage.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I never said you treat them differently. I just think that you need to reevaluate your definition of male. I believe that is what suzywao was trying to say as well. There is more than one definition for male, you can't generalize it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ejaye, congrats on being all politically correct and crap but no, by definition and for the exact reasons Block head explained a trans man isn't as much of a man as a natural born man.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Its not being politically correct, its stating facts that are apparently not getting through. Block head can not stand by his definition of a man unless he actually uses and lives by that definition. My definition of a cat follows a certain criteria, if it is met and I can observed it being fulfilled then I can assume that what I'm seeing is a cat. I can't have a definition of something that I am never observing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't get why you can't understand this. The criteria of a cat is definitive, you can't choose the criteria. The criteria for a man is a Y chromosome, which make the gender males without it, less of a man. Maybe a fantastic person, probably a great man, but not as much a man as biological males

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He is not saying that people who do not meet his definition are not men. He is saying that they are not as completely male than someone born with a Y chromosome, which is true from a genetic standpoint. So technically he could live by this without having to DNA test everyone. You could see something that you would identify as a plant, but it could actually be a protist. (Yes, I know my comparison is not wholly analogous to what we're discussing, but a better example is not coming to me).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is a difference between a biological 'male' and the gender 'male.' I have said this three different times in three different ways now, so I'll leave it at that. No trans guy I have ever met would call themselves a biological male. That is not what is being discussed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thus, they are less male than complete males because they lack the biological factor.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Gender is not contingent upon biological sex. For the.. fifth time now? They are completely unrelated. I really don't know what else to say, so I will end with this comment, you are either misunderstanding me (through your fault or my own) or refusing to grasp this concept. In this context, male has three completely different definitions. One is biology, meaning XY chromosomes, production of sperm, etc. Another is gender. This is entirely in the brain, the sex of your "soul," as you put it. This is how you feel inside, your gender role in society, your masculine qualities. The last is your legal sex, which is self explanatory. It may be changed regardless of your chromosomes. Since the text is speaking exclusively about the latter two definitions that I listed, and I believe explicitly states that he isn't less of a man (gender), but is different (sex), I cannot comprehend why you continue to argue a by definition irrelevant point if you truly believe someone can be a man inside. If you think it makes him less of a man, as is the entire point of the post, you are treating him differently.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I hate to break it to you... but there are non-trans men with XX chromosomes. There are non-trans women with XY chromosomes. There are people with XXX and XXY chromosones. There are 'intersex' people who are born with genitals not distinctly male or female (no, they are not "hermaphrodites"). Even sex isn't as binary as people think it is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Lolwut? I don't understand how you can make up your own phenotype based on a different genotype. Please explain. I'm really interested.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you're transsexual, you are less of a man, because part of you is female. It doesn't make you less tough, or less of a person. Just less male.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Transexual and transgender are two different things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, they're two different things that I've never understood the difference between. Can you explain? They seem to have nearly identical definitions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Transexual will get surgery to change their generalist to fit what they deem as the right sex. A transgendered person doesn't always feel the need to go as far. A lot of transgendered people end up feeling enough like what they feel their gender is with hormones or even just changing their appearance on the surface (hair cut, clothes, binding etc) Idk if this helps but I hope it does. That's the best way I can think to simplify it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, thanks for explaining. I used to think transsexual was a sexuality... :/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Haha I could understand that. Afterall heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual and a-sexual are all sexualities. It fits on, it gets confusing. :P

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are not less of a man for not having the right chromosome. Just as a person who is missing something genetically is not less of a human being.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, if you are missing enough genetic code, you are biologically less human. Chimps are something like 97% the same as us, but still are not human.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are people born with extra chromosomes. Are they more human?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. They are further from the genetic makeup of normal humans. They have the basic code, but then dilute it, so they are either equally human or less human, biologically speaking. Socially, however, they are jsut as human as the rest of us.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I would just like to say, everything about what we are does not lie in our genetics. Genetically speaking, we are all different, but all equally human. Being born with only 9 toes does not make someone less human. A transgendered man is still a man, equal with all other men, just different.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also, in the post the op acknowledged that they are "different ". They are using the word man in the social context which makes him no less of a man for the sake of society.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did anyone else think of organic chemistry when they read this? cis-trans bonds?... no?...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Of course not. Gender is psychological (don't confuse it with sex). If you identify as a man, you are 100% one. Also, really cheered me up to see this had so many more YYAs than NWs! :D

by Anonymous 11 years ago