I hear ya, Laurence.
I take it that in the remarks below "functioning as a male" means
performing in penile-vaginal penetration, that is, heterosexual
intercourse. I take it, furthermore, that "functioning as a woman"
means being the "receptor" in this exchange. The suggestion is that if
one can't 'properly' penetrate (i.e, function as a male), then, one
should be made into a receptor (i.e., a functioning woman). Thus,
resources should be mobilized to excise the pathetic penis and a vagina
should be constructed that will do the trick. This surgical mutilation,
furthermore, should be complemented with a life-long regimen of chemical
control.
Notice however that consideration does not seem to have been given to
the anatomical part commonly known as the *clitoris*. I infer from the
prescriptive remarks below that "functioning as a woman" has nothing to
do with the clitoris. To the best of my knowledge, medical science has
not figured out a way to make these (not that it has tried: after all,
who needs 'em??).
By contrast, surgical procedures are routinely performed to remove a
given clitoris if it is deemed to be too big ("enlarged") or to "hide
it". Interestingly, although white western feminists have regularly
criticised the ritual/religious clitorectomies performed in sub-Saharan
countries, North africa, etc., they have kept their distance from the
struggles of intersexed activists such as the members of ISNA
(Intersexed Society of North America) who decry those procedures in the
so-called First World.
Regards, Shelley Tremain
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Nobody addressed my earlier question about whether it is better, given the
> human worship of the penis, if a person is born with micropenis that surgery
> and hormones make the gender a girl rather than suffer an entire lifetime as
> a non-functioning "male." What got me interested in this subject is having
> learned about micropenis issues from men with spina bifida on a list similar
> to this. I had never heard about micropenis before hearing these men discuss
> their pain at never being able to function with a woman and never being able
> to trust a woman they are with (if they do have a relationship) for fear she
> will always want a "real man." Is this lifetime of trauma "kinder" than
> having the person raised as a different gender?
>
> After seeing the discussion of micropenis on several lists I searched for
> mailing lists of persons with this condition. To my surprise, I found one.
> But most of those involved seem to have dealt with it by becoming
> homosexuals. (The men on the spina bifida list, to my knowledge, were not.)
> This seemed to support the claims held by some that homosexuality is not
> predetermined genetically but is a choice taken as the least painful route
> for those who did not feel secure in other relationships (some say with their
> fathers but in this case with women who might not accept them as males unable
> to function as such).
>
> Interesting discussions, but I'd like to make the call that while we talk
> theories and that's fine, to remember the bottom line in all human affairs
> (no pun intended) is relationship. If these people cannot have fulfilling
> sexual relationships as men, it seems to not give them the opportunity to
> function as females condemns them to ostracism and trauma as non-functioning
> males or as equally ostracised homosexuals.
>
> ARIEL
> [log in to unmask] (use e-mail address for MSN Messenger, too)
> evoice number: 274355466 (ariellion spelled out)
> Aol Instant Messenger: Ariel Lion
> Yahoo Messenger: ariel_lionofgod
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|