Ayu's dancer Hide has changed sex from man to woman

[Mayayu]

At first i thought it was some tabloid story from outer space but sometimes the truth is even wilder than anyone's imagination, right?

Good for her anyway!

[haikudasai]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

^ i agree with you, but you dont think its shocking to be a man one day and then a woman the next (physically).

I don't think it has anything to do with taboos... but just thinking about it... to a 'normal' person why would you want to change you sex? It's just shocking over all. But it happens and I think the 'shock' factor comes from why someone would do it. Not that they did it.

Its hard for people to try and grasp something that they dont understand and people are still arguing over the fact that homosexuality is a choice or not, so for something like this... well you can image how those people feel/ dont understand and find it shocking.

Then there should be a new "normal".

It may be shocking to those who don't understand but why must she not show her true self to keep those from learning to accept?

From one day, a man, to the next, a woman? You don't think she had inner conflict with her gender for an extended length of time?

This is a big social issue and to make yourself public regarding it IS what can assist with changing that "normal".

lol at various people saying "I'm not a homophobe" .... reminds me of "I'm not racist" "I have black friends"

[Chibi-Chan]

^agree!

[channy]

Okay, now I want Shuya with long, brown hair and a terrific cleavage. Immediately!

[sugarbasil]

I'm very surprised that nowhere in the four pages of discussion has anyone brought up Alfred Kinsey and the concept of sexuality and gender as on a continuum. Rarely is anyone either 100% gay or straight or feel 100% like a male or female in a social context. It's like saying that you can only be 100% autistic or 100% not autistic. There's a spectrum. Labels like "transgender" ignore the continuum, because they imply that you fall under some "other" category. There is no "other" category in a continuum. Hence, there is no "normal," only "common."

Plus, I mean...do we really need the word "transgender?" Society shapes gender, so there is no one "true" gender. "Intersex," "hermaphrodite," etc. are different in that they are biological abnormalities and may cause physical issues (sometimes they don't). And here we get into the argument that psychological "deviations," "abnormalities," and "illnesses" are all made up for the sake of categorization and that there are only biological "abnormalities." It's true that it's easier for humans to categorize people into different categories so as to make sense of the world easier. If I can give you a label my mind feels more at ease...

As for Hide, I think it's great that he decided to do what was necessary to make him feel more comfortable in his own skin. I think she's beautiful, and I don't even know what people are talking about when they say she still looks like a man. She looks like a model to me. I'm glad she decided to come out about it, too, because Japan is so closet about these types of things (so are many other countries, the U.S. included).

[TeamAyu2004]

^ that's because Alfred Kinsey was a quack who slept with his assistants for his study.
But I will agree with the point of no one is 100% one or the other...
and one of the posters forgot to mention Bisexual people. They exist. And they most likely have more fun then someone who identifies themselves as one or the other. =)

Originally Posted by haikudasai

Then there should be a new "normal".

It may be shocking to those who don't understand but why must she not show her true self to keep those from learning to accept?

From one day, a man, to the next, a woman? You don't think she had inner conflict with her gender for an extended length of time?

This is a big social issue and to make yourself public regarding it IS what can assist with changing that "normal".

lol at various people saying "I'm not a homophobe" .... reminds me of "I'm not racist" "I have black friends"

Sadly there will never be a new 'normal' because biologically speaking its man and woman. The whole point of an animal is to hook up and have as many babies as possible. If you dont fit that agenda then you are not 'normal'

the reason why i say 'normal' with the ' ' is because we are people and we are different then regular animals... although we are animals but we have a conscious and we know the difference between right and wrong (which is a completely different debate itself) we thing we are better then the 'normal' animal, but we expect to act like 'normal' animals with morals.

As for my comment about being a man one day and a woman next... I said physically. I said nothing about her inner most thoughts. If she had surgery then it happened over night, or during the day.. depends on when she had it.

And again, I dont think the 'normal' will ever change. Because in order for it to be normal the majority of people have to do it... and if the majority of people are have conflicting sexual gender issues... then the world will be in trouble...

[sugarbasil]

^You should really look at the Kinsey studies. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html

In his studies (and mind you, this was in the 40s and 50s when people were even less open about it) he found that (sample size of 5,300 white males):

"nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male). 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on the 7-point Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for this period of their lives (Table 147, p. 651, Male)."

So you tell me what "normal" is then if almost 50% of white males (just as an example - Kinsey studied other groups, too) have experimented in homosexuality. Just saying. Not trying to get into an argument, just trying to open your eyes because I don't see a problem with this:

... if the majority of people are have conflicting sexual gender issues... then the world will be in trouble...

[[_jo_]]

If you're interested in watch her her qhen she eas a he, you can take a llok at 'BEST of COUNTDOWN LIVE Documentary Film' DVD; there's a lot of she Beacause she performed the Interlude Before No way to say, there are rehearsal scenes and stuff.

I always wondered why was not in the troup anymore, I have the answer now

[channy]

Normality is just an illusion whatsoever and the validity of the behaviour of people is hard to classify. In my opinion it's just human to adopt the life style that society as a whole represents as state of normality simply to 'fit in' and avoid getting rejected.

The human psychology is too complex to tell what's normal plus I don't know normal people. How do they recognize them?

As long as the daily life works in a way that family life, work and circle of friends are intact, that could be probably named as "normal".

Even though I still wonder what that should have to do with sexual preferences. Sexuality is never normal. It's greasy

[Andrenekoi]

Originally Posted by sugarbasil

I'm very surprised that nowhere in the four pages of discussion has anyone brought up Alfred Kinsey and the concept of sexuality and gender as on a continuum. Rarely is anyone either 100% gay or straight or feel 100% like a male or female in a social context. It's like saying that you can only be 100% autistic or 100% not autistic. There's a spectrum. Labels like "transgender" ignore the continuum, because they imply that you fall under some "other" category. There is no "other" category in a continuum. Hence, there is no "normal," only "common."

Plus, I mean...do we really need the word "transgender?" Society shapes gender, so there is no one "true" gender. "Intersex," "hermaphrodite," etc. are different in that they are biological abnormalities and may cause physical issues (sometimes they don't). And here we get into the argument that psychological "deviations," "abnormalities," and "illnesses" are all made up for the sake of categorization and that there are only biological "abnormalities." It's true that it's easier for humans to categorize people into different categories so as to make sense of the world easier. If I can give you a label my mind feels more at ease...

As for Hide, I think it's great that he decided to do what was necessary to make him feel more comfortable in his own skin. I think she's beautiful, and I don't even know what people are talking about when they say she still looks like a man. She looks like a model to me. I'm glad she decided to come out about it, too, because Japan is so closet about these types of things (so are many other countries, the U.S. included).

I had a similar discussion not too many days ago, and I have to say that IMO those words, or "labels" are necessary. Not because we need to separate people or something, but because those words are not only how people are seen by society, but a lot of times it's also how people seen themselves. We, as human beings, need to feel as part of something, need to find our place on society and need to feel that we are seen by society, and as human beings, we only knowledge something after it's named, after it have a word after it. On a world where every sexual related group has a name, not giving them a name is not giving them visibility.

A lot of times, those labels (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, man, woman, transgender, intersex, etc.) are embraced by people on those conditions themselves trying to find what they are. I agree more than calling Hide a transexual, calling her a woman now is fair enough... But it doesn't solve health related issues (she will always need to take hormones and different genders react differently to some deseases), where she will always be a transexual.

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by sugarbasil

^You should really look at the Kinsey studies. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html

In his studies (and mind you, this was in the 40s and 50s when people were even less open about it) he found that (sample size of 5,300 white males):

"nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male). 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on the 7-point Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale for this period of their lives (Table 147, p. 651, Male)."

So you tell me what "normal" is then if almost 50% of white males (just as an example - Kinsey studied other groups, too) have experimented in homosexuality. Just saying. Not trying to get into an argument, just trying to open your eyes because I don't see a problem with this:

I know all about his study.. I studied it in college, it still doesnt change the fact that a ton of people found his methods and his theories to be out there, mostly his method.
Not only do we have to look into how dated the information is. The only reason why he is still talked about now is because no one has done a study like his since then.
Not many people have touched subject really.

And sorry, but most of the information is based on responsiveness... which just means if you are a male and find a male attractive that gives you a point for homosexuality. and the fact is its just not that simple.

the study is not really taken to point in the anthropology field. However it did help open up the minds of a lot of people in sexuality.

[Larien]

Originally Posted by sugarbasil

I'm very surprised that nowhere in the four pages of discussion has anyone brought up Alfred Kinsey and the concept of sexuality and gender as on a continuum. Rarely is anyone either 100% gay or straight or feel 100% like a male or female in a social context. It's like saying that you can only be 100% autistic or 100% not autistic. There's a spectrum. Labels like "transgender" ignore the continuum, because they imply that you fall under some "other" category. There is no "other" category in a continuum. Hence, there is no "normal," only "common."

Plus, I mean...do we really need the word "transgender?" Society shapes gender, so there is no one "true" gender. "Intersex," "hermaphrodite," etc. are different in that they are biological abnormalities and may cause physical issues (sometimes they don't). And here we get into the argument that psychological "deviations," "abnormalities," and "illnesses" are all made up for the sake of categorization and that there are only biological "abnormalities." It's true that it's easier for humans to categorize people into different categories so as to make sense of the world easier. If I can give you a label my mind feels more at ease...

As for Hide, I think it's great that he decided to do what was necessary to make him feel more comfortable in his own skin. I think she's beautiful, and I don't even know what people are talking about when they say she still looks like a man. She looks like a model to me. I'm glad she decided to come out about it, too, because Japan is so closet about these types of things (so are many other countries, the U.S. included).

This. <3
+ Cultural Reletavism x1000

[sugarbasil]

^^^My feelings on that is we as a society just need to accept that not everyone fits into one category and there's nothing wrong with that. Labeling people just perpetuates issues of "us" vs. "them" or "normal" vs. "other." Think of pretty much every single mental health label you can think of. If you label someone as "depressed" or "autistic" or whatever, yeah, it gives them a voice in society and makes them feel recognized, but at the expense of making them an "other." They will never fit into society being an other, no matter how recognized because they'll always be someone who isn't "normal."

Basically, I'm saying this is a systemic issue. I 100% agree with you that people can feel better about themselves if they have a label to identify with (only further proving my point that we as humans need to categorize ourselves), but my point is that people shouldn't have to embrace a label that was created by a biased society to figure out and accept who they are.

But the other point I was trying to make is that socially constructed labels shouldn't exist, not biologically related labels. Biological is biological. Most biological "problems" are recognized around the world, but "psychological" and "social" "problems" vary from culture to culture. These are just my personal feelings, as we're all allowed to disagree. I base my feelings on theories I agree with, and they're just theories after all.

I know all about his study.. I studied it in college, it still doesnt change the fact that a ton of people found his methods and his theories to be out there, mostly his method.
Not only do we have to look into how dated the information is. The only reason why he is still talked about now is because no one has done a study like his since then.
Not many people have touched subject really.

And sorry, but most of the information is based on responsiveness... which just means if you are a male and find a male attractive that gives you a point for homosexuality. and the fact is its just not that simple.

the study is not really taken to point in the anthropology field. However it did help open up the minds of a lot of people in sexuality.

I respectfully disagree. There have been many studies done to expand upon his research (most noteably by Dr. Fritz Klein in 2006), and I think you're missing the point of his scale (or at least my point). Giving you even one point towards homosexual tendencies is proving that you're not 100% straight. Maybe you're 99% straight, but not 100%. Hence, the continuum, hence the dissolve of strictly "male" vs. "female" gender categories, and hence the dissolve of "normal" and emergence of "common." And that is something almost all anthropologist agree upon (the concept of common and not normal) and have gotten from his study. It was a very important development in the field of sexual psychology and anthropology. I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.

And here I await emi's response

[Delicious n Bold]

inb4 the inevitable lock

I personally don't care much about what people choose to do or choose to be called. It's nothing to get hyped about and there are better thing to argue, like the fact that Ayu hasn't given us a jaw-dropping amazing ballad for years.

Oh yeah, and I call people what they want me to call them (pronoun wise). Nicknames are exempt. I give everything nicknames.

[Αyumi]

I think this is AMAZING.

[sugarbasil]

Yeah...we kind of lost site of the thread, didn't we. Thanks guys for bringing it back on track

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by sugarbasil

I respectfully disagree. There have been many studies done to expand upon his research (most noteably by Dr. Fritz Klein in 2006), and I think you're missing the point of his scale (or at least my point). Giving you even one point towards homosexual tendencies is proving that you're not 100% straight. Maybe you're 99% straight, but not 100%. Hence, the continuum, hence the dissolve of strictly "male" vs. "female" gender categories, and hence the dissolve of "normal" and emergence of "common." And that is something almost all anthropologist agree upon (the concept of common and not normal) and have gotten from his study. It was a very important development in the field of sexual psychology and anthropology. I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.

And here I await emi's response

I guess we're just going to have to disagree.
I think you missed the point of my argument. Just because 1 male finds another male attractive doesn't make them homosexual.

"nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes"

and then you go to say: "if almost 50% of white males (just as an example - Kinsey studied other groups, too) have experimented in homosexuality"

which the study did not say that nearly 50% of males have experimented in homosexuality... it said engaged in or reacted to. (and by saying reacted to that could be anywhere from be jealous of a guy with six pack abs or saying that Brad Pitt is an attractive dude.)
the fact is that he had to combine the two to make his theory work.

thats why i said that there is more too it then just be gay or straight. People of the same sex can find others of the same sex but not feel the need to have sex with that sex (confusing I know).

As for Dr. Fritz Klein, you are confusing your facts. He died in 2006, he didn't do his research then. He did his scale on sexuality in 1978 and he did it BECAUSE of all the criticism that Kinsey got for his research.

I'm not saying that Kinsey didn't open the perspective on human sexuality, he did because of his research, but he was to narrow with it and tended to lump people together because of 1 point or another and when it comes to sexuality you cant do that.

And I dont know what to say about her gender comments... its a totally different subject (from the homosexual comments we have been having). The gender is more on topic, but you can't confuse gender with sex one can even argue that being gender female in a male body is abnormal, since it is.
And for the common and normal, I consider them one in the same. If its normal, then its common, if its abnormal then its uncommon? I don't see where you going with this? You'll have to show me some facts about it, because I got my degree in anthropology (working on sex studies now) and have never heard of the common replacing normal. (also some good books would be interesting too...)

If your really interested in it I have all my old studies from my sex gender and culture class.. (amazing class... and the book "Constructing Sexualities is an amazing read if you ever have the time)

[Andrenekoi]

@sugarbasil
The thing is, we can cease labeling the "other", but ceasing labeling the "standart" is almost impossible for now... It may happen, but it would ask for a social revolution that would take decades to be completed... If we just cease labeling the "other" but keep labeling the "standart", we are pretty much ignoring the "other", and being ignored by society is far worst than being just segregated... Once u r ignored, anything can happen to you and nobody will notice because people pretty much don't even care about you existing or not. We already live on a society where different groups are valued differently, that's why the death of a white mid class kid still shock the population more than the death of a poor black kid, and this happen to a group that actually is identified and somewhat respect, imagine what happens to a group that is just plain ignored? There are people being murdered all over the world, even if rich countries, and those murders are ignored by media and sometimes even by justice because worst than valuing less, those groups value nothing. My mother deals with that stuff daily, minority issues and stuff, and sometimes i get really shocked by the numbers she shows me @___@

On a perfect society, we wouldn't be much more than human beings living on the way we felt made us happier... But on a society were the standart groups are named, labeled and categorized, denying it to minority groups is worst than labeling.

Originally Posted by Delicious n Bold

inb4 the inevitable lock

I personally don't care much about what people choose to do or choose to be called. It's nothing to get hyped about and there are better thing to argue, like the fact that Ayu hasn't given us a jaw-dropping amazing ballad for years.

Oh yeah, and I call people what they want me to call them (pronoun wise). Nicknames are exempt. I give everything nicknames.

Oh please, don't bring the "Ayu was a goddess now she is crap" thread of the month into here, discussing u dislike her recent ballads would be even more off topic and discussing sexuality (what is at last in touch with the thread subject). It get even more offensive because crossroad is my favorite Ayu ballad, and it is pretty recent.

This thread didn't start drama and the subject is being discussed on a surprisingly mature and polite way, I do believe it would be a nice oportunity for us all to educate ourselves on subjects concerning our society that are far bigger than anything Ayu will ever do.^^

[happiholic★]

Originally Posted by Delicious n Bold

inb4 the inevitable lock

I personally don't care much about what people choose to do or choose to be called. It's nothing to get hyped about and there are better thing to argue, like the fact that Ayu hasn't given us a jaw-dropping amazing ballad for years.

Oh yeah, and I call people what they want me to call them (pronoun wise). Nicknames are exempt. I give everything nicknames.

Do I have a nickname? *3*

And since some people say that Hide looks manly (does she have a female name she goes by now?), I wonder how far along she is in her transition? I have a friend who has been going through FtM transition and he's been doing it for a while, but only recently had all of his back hair come in. He was so proud So, I wonder, at the very least when that photo was taken? She could be more "feminine" by now.

[Delicious n Bold]

Originally Posted by Andrenekoi

Oh please, don't bring the "Ayu was a goddess now she is crap" thread of the month into here, discussing u dislike her recent ballads would be even more off topic and discussing sexuality (what is at last in touch with the thread subject). It get even more offensive because crossroad is my favorite Ayu ballad, and it is pretty recent.

This thread didn't start drama and the subject is being discussed on a surprisingly mature and polite way, I do believe it would be a nice oportunity for us all to educate ourselves on subjects concerning our society that are far bigger than anything Ayu will ever do.^^

I didn't say that ayu has gone from being a queen to crap just that there hasn't been that ONE song that nearly everybody goes caca over for a long time. her new CD seems to be popular even with the non fans. I browse other forums and everyone's like "OMG AYU YES". So, everyone is gonna go caca over this cd or something.
I think crossroad is a fine song, but i just brought that up because this thread was getting messier than the sunrise/sunset covers *drink to that*


@happiholic★
... maybe ;P