Wachowskis gender change

anyone know the reasoning to this? bit crazyy

I'm more interested in how those hack frauds can get their movies funded.

Old news is what I think.

I wouldn't teeter around these parts using the word "crazy" when talking about gender dysmorphia and surgery. Good way to get banned around here, even if those who get gender reassignment surgery have a really heightened risk of suicide. Issuing warnings to those considering the surgery should probably be looked into...(even though we're supposed to be cool with it).

Doesn't really matter tbh, they change gender so what?

Who cares? Gender is a ridiculously stupid collection of ever evolving stereotypes, and people with firm opinions on things like gender roles are just trying to push their preferred stereotypes on other people. The way people deal with the societal pressures caused by this obsolete and soon to be dead concept is up to them, so long as they are not hurting anyone.

Unless you are very involved in her life, seems silly to even really notice.

Or, and here's a thought.

There's a biological basis to gender that will never ever change because biology and science.

Well, statistically, transgendered people who go through re-assignment surgery become much, much, more likely to kill themselves.

Wouldn't you say it's in poor taste to not want to help prevent people from killing themselves? I mean, if you cared about people, I'd assume you'd want to prevent them from making radical descisions that might lead to their own suicide. Seems silly to not notice...

Sex = XX or XY in the overwhelming majority of cases, and is commonly associated with genitalia, even if a male lacking penis and testicles is still male. This is because sex is governed by chromosomes. Genitalia is usually a quick and easy indicator, but it is not the deciding factor.

Gender = Girls like pink dolls, boys like blue trucks.

The first governs a lot of medical and biological aspects of our existence. The second is a collection if silly stereotypes, as it is laughable to claim that disposition, personality, aesthetic, and one's life goals should be governed by genitalia.

Yeah, gender isn't the same as one's sex. But you also said,

Yeah, exactly. Which kind of makes it weird to see comments like,

Come on now. These are rich-ass high-profile filmmakers who keep making blockbuster movies, and we're acting as if we're doing them a service by trying to save their lives? MAYBE I would believe that if I wasn't constantly hearing people wishing that Michael Bay would die just because he "ruined" Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In any case, if the Wachowski gender issues are life threatening and hazardous to their health, then I trust that that's something to be discussed with their friends, families, and doctors. not some random wahoos on the internet who have probably never even met the siblings. Are we REALLY gonna try to pretend that this kind of celebrity discussion has ANYTHING to do with "helping people from killing themselves?"

This. These guys created The Matrix. There are millions of people much much more vulnerable around the world then they are. I'm not saying wachowski's aren't important, but let's not pretend they're victims of some sort of online uprising.

they are terrible movie makers, ban them !

Considering that those suicides come in 99% of cases because of the rejection they suffer from society, the best way to help them is trying o make society less intolerant, or at least one who doesn't really care about what other people do with their bodies.

Any other way would mean interfering with their choices and their life. That for sure is of poor taste.

@MrGeezer: *were rich fim makers

It was his/her choice! If a person needs to make changes in their life that will them happy, no matter how crazy it seems to others, then so be it. But at the same time, they have to live with the end results as well, whether it be good or bad. Me personally, I'm happy with how nature created me, but I'm a live and let live person.

ever thought that maybe the large amount of negativity surrounding transsexuals is part of the problem? I'm sure you mean well, but you should really leave this to the professionals.

Yeah, that didn't happen. Back in the olden times rich people couldn't really "afford" to be openly homosexual, because they had a lot to lose. If you get fired from a job pumping gas or tending bar you can just find another, perhaps even at a bar catering to the community. If you owned a business and several of your partners or advertisers might suddenly vanish, or a job in a nice office... Well people do a lot of silly things for oodles and oodles of cash and influence.

So the "face" of homosexuality in the eighties and nineties wasn't a trendy person with money, they were a poor person who didn't really care about people's opinion. You can walk around downtown in the North West and find thousands who still fit this mold. The only real difference is rich folks rebranding.

In Reality, girls liking dolls and boys liking trucks ties into biology, not culture. Most aren't stereotypes, they're patterns of behavior and thinking that are hardwired. http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

Yes personality is largely tied to sex; men are more aggressive and driven due to biology.

Physical Aesthetics such as preferences in terms of weight, waist to shoulder ratio, and attractiveness of face are all biological drives.

Yes, even life goals are driven by your default sex. Men are driven to compete, and accumulate resources, women are programmed to be more nurturing and put more emphasis on family.

We're all human and biology is what makes it so.

me too

I saw a q&a with the Wachowskis. It simply reinforced what I;ve always thought about trans issues, which is that gender doesn't matter. Mia Wachowski is an arrogant, smarmy douche hack as a woman, and she was as a man, just like her brother.

@still_vicious: Found a great video on Youtube, she's Transgender, but is very smart!

they change gender but still making love with women ....... I think they love watching lesbian action and dream to be in it

yeah, transgender or not, 'man' will never change, right ? ^^

Make that three.

It's true, I'm seeing the left increasingly pretend that gender doesn't matter and that biology doesn't either.

The anti science in the left is growing.

Wasn't happy with what he saw in the mirror?

Wachowski's last movies have all been critical and/or financial flops of sorts. Their last one, Jupiter Ascending, was a massive failure in both aspects. Robin Williams was much more high-profile, respected, and even made better films in his late career - but suicidal tendencies developed regardless. Acting like having wealth or fame means you won't commit suicide just even further shows your ignorance here.

I mean, you have to be a pretty crass dude if you want people to change their gender, regret the decision, and kill them selves because the issue wasn't handled in a better way. You might say you don't want that, but unless you condemn it you're basically saying you don't really care about transgendered people. "Who cares if they kill themselves? Their choice, not my problem". Kind of a crass attitude if you ask me.

Leave what to the professionals? Treating gender dysphoria by feeding into it rather than treating it for what it is? You do realize that many professionals have differing opinions on gender dysphoria, right? Not all Dr.s have been brainwashed by the left.

If gender reassignment surgery actually worked, we could safely assume significantly LESS transgendered would kill themselves after reassignment surgery, not significantly MORE.

P.S. If it exclusively had to do with negativity surrounding transexuals, then having gender reassignment surgery wouldn't play any part because there are tons of trans people who don't necessarily get the surgery. There's no way to even know if a trans person got the surgery, so you couldn't stigmatize specifically the reassignment if you wanted to

For a lot of late male-to-female transgender folk, it's really about actualizing a fetish.

Boys love dolls. They might have been rebranded as "Action figures" in order to make them accessible to the sensibilities of the middle of last century, but that doesn't change the fact that boys go crazy for dolls. Heck now that we are in the digital age, boys will sit in front of computers and dress up virtual dolls for hours on end. The fact that our society says it is totally normal for boys to play with dolls as long as the dolls have a "masculine" sounding name and do "masculine" sounding things illustrates the point that this is mostly influenced by culture not biology pretty nicely.

Most of the rest relies on presenting statistical trends as universally applicable facts. Men are not more aggressive then women. Many men might be more aggressive then many women, but that works both ways. You might accurately say most men are more aggressive then most women, but you can not accurately state that all men are. Sex and culture influence all these qualities, and referring to them as constants is nothing more then the intellectually lazy act of stereotyping.

Stereotyping isnt always born out of ignorance, sometimes it is born out of the fact that it simply represents the norm, the average and the usual.

Not all men are stronger than women, but I dont see the harm in saying men are stronger than women when that is the norm, the average and the usual. Making a generalisation isnt inherently sexist. Inhibiting a strong woman from progressing her career is sexist, mocking her for being strong is sexist. Belittling her accomplishments could be sexist.

Saying "birds can fly" makes sense in the general sense, but not all birds can, Im not ignorant to that fact...but I dont think its offensive for me to state the former. If we want to live in a truly politically correct world then people would have to speak and act in an incredibly contrived manner in order to appease the minority of the population who might find a stereotype offensive. Thats not good IMO.

Painting a picture of our overall society is something human beings have done since year dot. Its natural to stereotype and generalise. I think we as a society need to move away from enforcing political correctness and towards encouraging a "stereotype of acceptance". A who gives a shit mentality. Its far less intrusive and obnoxious than the left wing social media SJWs.

I think if people are offended by something I have said in day to day life they have a responsibility and a right to challenge me and I can engage them in an honest and open conversation....however...I dont think for a second people have a right to stop me from stereotyping the society in which I live, a society that ultimately stereotypes me.

When you live in a world with 7.125 billion people its time for people to accept they are not a pretty unique little snowflake and instead of concentrating on who might be offended by a generalisation concentrate on how we can protect and preserve the world on which we live.

The post you are quoting is discussing the claim"There's a biological basis to gender that will never ever change because biology and science." I am not offended by generalizations, but I do dislike it when people confuse stereotypes and science. You can say "Birds fly" and "Pink is for girls" all day long, just don't pretend it is biology. Stereotypes are not laws of nature, they are intellectual shortcuts molded overtime by society, and they will never stop evolving.

On the topic of the thread: It is no one's responsibility to fall in line with a stereotype, and having on opinion on a stranger's failure to do so is silly at best. Getting bent out of shape about it seems sinister.

... Why are people so concerned with the private matters of some one they have no relationship with what so ever?

@still_vicious:

Just for the record does that mean your in agreement with other facets of scientific biology such as the scientific Theory of Evolution?

@kittennose: See the video I posted

@Storm_Marine: It really is baffling considering every single one of their movies seems to be a huge flop.

Yes. I enjoy science.

This is the most succinct, apt and deliciously sarcastic definition of gender I've ever seen. It really comes down to what other people view as a gender stereotype that governs what is in fact one's "gender".

And to me, in the end, when people care so much about what others think of them, that they go out of their way to reassign their sexual organs just to better fit in with a stereotype, then I do in fact start to question their mental health a bit. Plenty of transsexual people get along well in life without ever reassigning their biological sex. Some think it's incredibly important to do, while others don't think so highly of it.

I'm in the camp of "be who you are, and don't ever try to 'fit in' just because other people have certain expectations of you".

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call those things dolls, if we're going to call video games dolls, might as well just call trucks dolls too. Girls prefer dolls because they fit with their natural nature of being more nurturing and wanting to raise children.

Well statistics are fact by definition.....

So GI Joes and Barbies are as close in your book as trucks and barbies? Also I have a fact you might like:

http://www.businessinsider.com/736-of-all-statistics-are-made-up-2010-2

Oh wait, the data has changed again:

http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/2010/08/05/85-of-statistics-are-false-or/

Treating an observed trend as more then just a single data point isn't good science.

dont you see the 'boy=blue and girls=red' thing ... they only changed red to pink and now look what we ended with ...

My point is that you're really stretching to call things dolls. I play video games because I like action and story, to compare that to a barbie is a stretch

In one source the guy was being sarcastic, the other source was a blog....and the blogs sources don't link to anything.

scientifically gathered statistics are the truth.

The idea that all statistics aren't worth studying just because a few are questionable is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can learn a lot from statistics, and ignoring them distorts what our views should be. Simple example. High percentages of refugees support sharia law, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ that's reason enough not to allow them in. We know this because we studied numbers.

Action figures are by definition dolls. From the wiki of the fox who coined the phrase:

The conventional marketing wisdom of the early 1960s was that boys would not play with dolls, thus the word "doll" was never used by Hasbro or anyone involved in the development or marketing of G.I. Joe. "Action figure" was the only acceptable term, and has since become the generic description for any poseable doll intended for boys. "America's movable fighting man" is a registered trademark of Hasbro, and was prominently displayed on every boxed figure package.

The only difference between dolls and action figures is branding specifically designed to address the "Dolls are for girls" insecurity. This is one of the reasons gender is such a silly concept. Things arbitrarily categorized as "feminine" must be given a "masculine" sounding name before it is acceptable for little boys to get excited about them. Their disposition doesn't change, only society's perception, and thus endorsement, of it.

And I didn't say statistics are not worth studying. They are however data points, not truth. A sound conclusion usually involves as many as possible, not one that lines up with your preexisting assumption. This is incredibly important in humanities, as data points often contradict each other, and are usually gathered to serve an agenda. Given your stance I am pretty sure I can illustrate this point nicely with just two words:

Feminist Statistics.

If I was having the same conversation with your liberal equivalent, I would need only go with the word Republican.

Yeah, you're really stretching with this one. To boys these toys are about action while the girls toy would be more about nurturing/motherly instincts. Which would likely explain why so few women play video games.

If a study is done in a scientific way, then there will not be any outside biases, that's why things like double blind studies take place. Studies when done properly they aren't an us vs. them thing, it just science.

Whatever floats your boat.

I didn't make a claim every child played with dolls the same way, I said liking dolls is not dependent upon gender. Glad you don't care about politics. I am sure you are a major fan of the studies that generate the ">50% of games are female" statistics.

Except it is....

SCIENCE!!!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys

Those statistics include mobile games, those aren't gamers. Look at a picture of a gaming convention and you'll hardly see a female face in the crowd.

The more this topic progresses the more it seems your point is merely about dolls, or how society tends to portray inanimate objects as masculine or feminine. This too is inherently normal and a great deal of its influenced by biology and gender. This biological influence is then used/abused/reinforced by advertising companies in order to sell us shit....but I dont understand your point.

If your point was...big advertising is sometimes guilty of reinforcing gender stereotypes...id agree.

If it was....Its wrong to inhibit someone's quality of life based on gender...id agree.

At the moment you seem to be discussing mostly whether or not boys like dolls, most of that debate seems centered around what the definition of a doll is and is not particularly relevant to gender as you have already established boys play with action figures/dolls.

Yes, that is why I stepped out of the conversation