Transgenderism does not make sense to me

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Batou667:
Good, so we agree I'm not denying anybody their humanity, and I'm certainly not taking anybody's humanity away, Shang Tsung style, with my nefarious CisHet powers of oppression.

Which nobody has said you were. Perhaps you should spare us the histrionics.

The phrase used was "dehumanizing speech", and this is not a not a new or difficult concept. Again, you could just avoid it, having been told it's a problem, even if you personally don't think it's important.

Agema:

However, the big issue is whether gender is the same as sex; but gender is not (solely) determined by sex, or X and Y chromosomes, or testicles and ovaries (however you want to put it). It can't be, because gender roles vary from culture to culture and time to time, which would be impossible were they biologically "hard-wired". Further to this, we also know perfectly well that cognitive output is not (solely) dependent on biologically "hard-wired" factors either. So therefore to try to and claim so is patently erroneous.

Sure, I mostly agree with that. I definitely agree that both traditionalists and progressives put too much stock in tying biological sex to "gendered" self expression. I use quotes because some things, like the example of preferring pink over blue, are only gendered in the most superficial traditionalist sense; really and truly somebody should be able to wear a certain colour, choose a profession, and have a sexual orientation, all completely divorced from their sex.

Batou667:

Well, does the picture look like a horse, or like a cow? Of course it's neither really, it's graphite on paper. Ceci n'est pas un pipe, and all that.

Categories are at least partially negotiated. Self-determination only goes so far. Although I mentioned that self-expression is a right, it doesn't logically follow that the other 7 billion people on our planet are compelled to uncritically accept that expression, because of course they're all free agents as well.

Wait a minute, so your criterion is purely based on looks? I mean abstract art is a thing to begin with. Like if I have a painting called 'happiness' and it's just a bright yellow square surrounded by black paint. Are you telling me it's wrong or somehow negotiable?

Secondly, you realize how fucking broken that metric is? I mean first you say that self-expression is a human right. And then self-determination only goes so far? Really? Since when do we describe human rights like that? Keep in mind what the definition of a human right is... Thirdly, what the metric fuck? So you're okay with just making assumptions of people by their looks? If someone is dressed as a fireman to a fancy dress party, do you just naturally assume they'll know what to do when there's an electrical fire or that they're capable of carrying an injured person outside by their ownsome?

So let's ignore all the hypotheticals of your ignorance and assumptions, or that you at least are self-aware enough to recognize the world does not revolve around your assumptions, if someone corrects you are you just going to ignore them in favour of your assumptions about them?

How exactly is that not dehumanizing?

That is the textbook definition of dehumanizing. You are stripping away a person's nuances, their self and their engagement with the world. Stripping away their individual presence, and reducing them to a caricature born only of your preconceptions.

Batou667:

Saelune:
Because that line of thinking IS unacceptable and DOES deserve silencing, because it is wrong and bigoted.

Not every view point or line of thinking deserves validation. Sometimes people are just wrong.

In my opinion, anybody who believes a deity or higher power exists is wrong. 100%, flat out, completely wrong. Theism is an illogical, non-scientific stance to take. If I wanted to bend a definition to my benefit I could say a belief in God is bigoted as it's "a strong belief held despite contradictory evidence". If I wanted to muddy a factual discussion by bringing social power and historical injustice into the mix, I could start trotting out the long list of wars, purges, and systemic persecution committed in the name of faith throughout history.

But - I would want nothing to do with a forum where the moderation team pops up to warn that, although we are in principle free to discuss religion, any posts that seem to suggest God exists will be deemed offensive and regressive and will result in bans.

That was, to be clear, just an example, not intended as an exact analogue, so please nobody waste their time telling me why it isn't an accurate comparison with the trans discussion. My point is that *I* don't want people I disagree with silenced. I'm an omnivore but I wouldn't want vegan posters censored. I'm conservative but I don't want all Leftists to be muzzled. Plenty of people are wrong, either wholly or partially, but for an opinion to be so fringe that it's not up for discussion? That sets a crazy precedent. In fact I can think of only two subjects that are "off the table" in this way: Holocaust denial, and criticism of Trans.

Good for you. That isn't the same as bigoted pseudo-science meant to oppress trans people.

There are plenty of things I disagree with that I have no problem discussing and do not think should be censored. You want to talk about how Skyrim is better than Morrowind go ahead. I wont report you, nor will I support you being banned for it, but its not the same as this.

altnameJag:

Satinavian:
*snip*

Abomination:
*snip*

Here's the trick fellas: neither of you are using the "biological essentialism" argument, as far as it pertains to gender identity. Far as I can tell, you both are fine calling a trans woman a woman and a trans man a man.

The "biological essentialism" argument goes thusly: if you weren't born with functional ovaries/uterus/vagina, you aren't a woman, and can never be, even if the tech shows up to transplant completely functional and all-encompassing hormones/organs. It reduces your gender identity to the mere theoretical reproductive functions of your plumbing at birth. And when you bring up menopause/hysterectomies/vasectomies/injuries, you get "but chromosomes", and when you bring up intersex conditions you get "disorders, sterile, not enough to matter", and when you bring up that gal with XY chromosomes who birthed kids, I generally get blocked.

If you can divorce starting biological sex and gender identity, the you, by definition, aren't using the biological essentialism argument.

Lil devils x:

altnameJag:
You aren't wrong, but actual lives are on the line. We need to do both. Like, "why would treatment for cis children with low self esteem due to their own views of themselves not also be covered?" Well, why shouldn't it be? Seriously, therapy and counseling and all that should be freely available. If one percent of the teen population could mitigate a shockingly high suicide rate with cosmetic surgery, cking do for it. I know of at least one charity out there going around fixing cleft palates for exactly that reason.

We also have to keep in mind the limitations of our current abilities as well however. Sadly, we are still extremely limited in what we can and cannot do in terms of cosmetic surgery, and far too often this goes terribly wrong and frequently fails to meet the patients expectations. Some people are not good candidates and will not have results they will be happy with, or even worse may leave them terribly disfigured. I feel that touting this as the solution will give those suffering terribly false expectations. There is no magic wand that will necessarily make them look amazing and there are side effects to all things considered. A lucky few may have amazing result, but reality is the majority do not. "subtle" changes are the safest and most likely to have the best results but those who are in the most despair over their appearance are also not the ones who subtle changes are likely to help. Therapy is a given, but as many can attest, it often does not change how they view themselves.

The problem is seeing cosmetic surgery as the solution when I feel that may do more harm than good in that it gives people a false hope that " this will make it all better" when in reality it often makes things worse and they are let down even further.

1) *A* solution, *a* part of therapy, not the be all and end all.
2) Don't bring up "suicide rate post surgery" if you aren't going to bring up how it's still lower than pre-surgery
3) What's the alternative? Seriously, besides "overhaul society", what've you got, in tangible options?

Yes, we do have to change society, as we have seen in societies where differences are celebrated rather than condemned, Transgendered people do not suffer from the same issues they do in cultures that ostracize them. Many are happy with their bodies due to never being given a reason not to be by the society they live in. Of course this is something that takes an extreme amount of time as society slowly evolves to that level and people do not have time to wait. In the meantime, we need to not just have standard counseling and therapy available, but we need an actual strong support network and mentoring system in place. We need to of course implement the promotion of the celebration of differences throughout education and adequately address bullying but we also need to provide an actual support and mentoring network that works. Those most vulnerable need to be surrounded by positivity and inclusion that they are lacking in current society. This cannot be accomplished by standard therapy it has to be intertwined throughout their existence. They have to have access to options that are not currently available. Being able to remove themselves from toxic environments, like being able to financially be able to change schools and move if necessary if that is what it takes, although I would also like there to be more resources available to address those persecuting them, but that too will be a long uphill battle to accomplish as well, especially given the current political environment. In the meantime, charities would have to be heavily involved in order to fund these things as it is apparent it is not going to happen via government any time soon. Crowd funding the building of a strong support network and heavily relying on volunteers for mentoring would be the most viable option in the current environment.

In addition, yes surgery options should remain available, however, they should not be promoted as a solution and the dangers, side effects and low expectations should be what is promoted OVER the amazing results few actually obtain. Preventing children and adults from thinking they can just have surgery to make them look like a supermodel should be the priority when discussing cosmetic options in order to help mitigate the crushing blow of reality so they hopefully will place less importance on the expectations of that solving their problems.

The issue with promoting it as "a" solution at all is that these kids hold that as " their only hope" due to what they imagine possible rather than understanding the reality that this may actually make things worse and they may not even be able to have the surgery in the first place if they are not a good candidate. Often they dream of what they "want to look like" and most of the time, that is just not possible regardless of what surgery they have. They often put all their hopes on that, which makes it all the more devastating when it is not possible.

You also cannot just compare the post op to pre op, as many are not even considered to be good candidates for surgery in the first place. Being denied surgery due to the risks involved per individual is extremely devastating as well when they placed all their hopes on that solving their problem. Prexisting medical conditions, skin type, prone to scar tissue and many other factors have to be considered prior to being considered a good candidate. It is not even something everyone can do.

This is not even getting into the lifelong dangers of breast or butt implants, that is a whole topic on it's own and why so many have to have them removed.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

And? Religion makes money out of its devotees ... this is a different type of scandal from televangelists because ...? Also Purgatory makes sense in terms of an ontological examination of the problem of evil. Say what you like, being a Catholic is more than justquoting passages out of a collection of books. It at least makes burdens on people to actually break down and personalize one's relationship to the divine.

The question was "what changed [after Luther]?" One of the answers is "the sale of indulgences". I'm not arguing here to defend protestants or judge catholics, just to point out that catholics themselves certainly did see merit in some of Luther's arguments.

As to ontological explanations for the problem of evil, sure. You're looking to the wrong person to debate purgatory with, since my secular understanding doesn't really have the problem of evil.

A Catholic priest is at least expected to study philosophy, theology and psychology for years ... which is more than what can be said about any Protestant preacher I've run into that is basically qualified to do precisely one thing ... quote the fucking Bible. And a revised, dumbed down Protestant Bible at that. Protestants simply don't bother about an actual argument as to the nature of God... about understanding the nuances when we talk of 'the works' of humanity and the primacy of grace. Have that discussion with a Protestant and their best answer is simply regurgitated paper at you.

Ok, if the claim is "I have not run into a more philosophically adept protestant priest than catholic" then I have no problem agreeing with that. However, if the claim is that "all catholic priests are better critical and religious thinkers" then I would have to disagree, if nothing else because there is no way you could possibly know that to be the case.

It's almost as if the printing press were built places to aid missionaries to publish Catholic materials to do just that. The catholics were big on the printing press. It allowed them to easier convert peoples the world over. It's probably one of the biggest reasons why Christianity spread as quickly as it did was precisely because of the mechanical printing press allowing them to (relatively) easily disperse materials wherever they set up colonies.

Perhaps by "rejection of the printing press" I would have better have said "strict religious control over the printing press". Printing in Rome was by papal decree only, similar to a lot of protestant nations before laws were changed and power slowly moved from nobles to burghers. But you are right, the catholics didn't reject printing more than protestants.

What double standard? Protestants did preisely as much if not worse. For example, roughly 10% Of all witch burnings during the Reformation happened between various Protestant sects in Scotland trying to one up themselves on eachother and trying to compete for converts to their particular brand of manufactured insanity.

Precicely. So the argument you made claiming that Protestants "wanted to destroy the catholic way of life" is a double standard, as catholics acted under the same motivation and most certainly started that fight.

The Roman Inquisition was basically the closest thing that Europe had to due process and made it unadmissable information obtained by torture. The Spanish Inquisition was a birth product of the violence and anarchy of the Reconquista mixed in with your usual antisemitism and was about targeting the 'Conversos' who the Spanish felt were simply paying lip service to Christianity.

Not torturing or "falsely" imprisoning people is a very low bar for an organization related to the Christian church, followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Because lets be frank, the Roman inquisition still executed people for religious difference (though I will grant rarely) and worked to uphold Spanish rule of Naples by imprisoning people trying to force the Spanish out of southern Italy. It was for all intents and purposes a repressive institution. You can argue that it was less repressive than other examples, but that does not change its fundamental nature.

The Spanish inquisition was a catholic institution ordained and supported by the catholic church. If the Spanish had been seen to go too far the papacy was more than capable of disowning the organization and moving to disband it. The failure to do so is nothing if not a tacit endorsement by the papacy. And besides, are you seriously telling me that the Papacy had a problem with slaughtering people on masse?

You seem to think the 'inquisitions' were a uniquely Catholic affair. In name only, and not even in spirit. It would be like comparing a political killing to ethnic cleansing. Only idiots would say 'murder is always just murder'.

No, I don't think that at all, I'm just mystified that you have this moral conception of history where catholics are put upon victims and protestants are these evil, uncultured swine working to ruin all the Papacy's good work. Protestants and catholics are precicely as good as each other in my opinion.

Last I checked there were no Protestants or Reformation in the 8th Century. It was just unambiguous Iberian Christians fighting against a foreign settler society on 'their lands' belonging to the various Spanish crowns.

Firstly, the requonquista was openly catholic enjoying significant support from the Pope (and not for example the orthodox christians). Secondly, The point was that if to you it is unacceptable that someone would fight with the purpose of destroying or eradicating those that think differently to them, then you would have to condemn the requonquista, which in turn would mean ceding the catholic high ground on people trying to eradicate their way of thinking. Turning around and criticising Luther for thinking that God was on his side as a catholic is absurd. Catholic arrogance about their self-rightiousness was no different and predates protestantism by a millenia.

Wow ... wars of religion are a thing. Who da thunk it? Of course it's also a bit disingenious to simply pretend as if Islamic invasions of Europe also never happened. Moreover, as awful as the crusades were, at least there was some geostrategic sense to it. The Reformation was purely a religious war. Fought on religious grounds. There were some economic trivialities, but they also didn't serve as the prime motivator.

Of course the religious wars were political. All wars are political and in my opinion all religion is political. Non-political war doesn't exist, doubly so for religious wars. The decision of the Swedish monarchy to aid the embattled Protestants was primarily strategic. Control of important Baltic ports were up for grabs and that German Lutherans were requesting assistence was a convinient excuse to extend Swedish control over economically valuable territory.

You know what a heresy is, right? See, the thing is if Vatican archives are to be actually shown as proof ... religious violence spiked with the Reformation. That it was clearly a period of kneejerk religiosity that was never actually that keenly felt before since the martyrs of Rome prior Honorius. Prior the Reformation, actually getting burned and tortured for various religious slights were exceptional cases. And the grand majority of them were non-Church related killings.

I don't think that answered my point; catholics did not respect freedom of conscience generally as evidenced by repression against people who wanted to think differently. Whether violence spiked before or after is irrelevent, its just as arguable that the spike in violence is a direct result of so many centuries of brutal catholic repression and excess rather than the inevitable result of a lack of such repression.

The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church didn't have to actually whack too many people with a big stick. Christianity was unchallenged, and more or less people simply respected the institution of the Papacy as its 'face'. The Reformation changed that, and because one at least offered the structure of bureaucracy in terms of religiosity while the other offered little to none, guess what turned out to be a safer time to be a 'Christian' in general?

Catholicism was the face of christianity in the west, orthodox christianity was and is completely dominant east of Lithuania. You are ignoring the far older schism than the reformation.

And how many people is "too many" in your opinion? Because its estimated that around 7000 men women and chilldren were killed immediately when Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury broke down the doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene in B?ziers to kill both the catholics and cathars inside. By the end of the day catholics reported around 20,000 dead, many of which were reportably blinded, dragged behind horses or used for target practice.

Perhaps you and I disagree about what constitutes a "big stick".

Copernicus didn't actually fear the Church ... he feared religiosity in general. But because he had an archbishop on his side he was safe. Without an archbishop, suddenly it becomes a whole lot more dangerous to be an advocate of heliocentrism. And this was a legitimate fear of the religious in general. And guess where the best evidence of that comes from? Luther's own goddamn mouth when he spoke of Copernicus.

Just to point out the fucking obvious, Magellan was Catholic, and he was writing entire journals worth of
information on celestial navigation that proved Copernicus was right ... No catholics came after him with a big stick.

Guy circumnavigated the globe, made astounding astronomical observations, bvasically the greatest explorer that ever lived and arguably hgelped build Catholicism into a global powerhouse to begin with with his exploits and means for the Portuguese and Spanish empires to rapidly rise to prominence and esteem. Where do you think he learnt to do that?

I don't see how Magellan changes the repressive nature of the catholic church. Its beside the point entirely. The Soviet Union was a scientific powerhouse relative to Tsarist Russia, it doesn't justify the gulags. Pointing out a few major thinkers or intellectuals who were spared doesn't mitigate the 100,000s killed over the centuries.

And yes, by "helped build Catholicism into a global powerhouse" you mean "spread catholic dominance through imperialism", right? Catholic missionaries were not known for their representativeness of Christ's eternal love, shall we say.

EDIT: In all fairness, no Christian missionaries were known for their compassion, so the "catholic" typed previously is superflous. It doesn't change my point though, that catholicism gained its place on the world stage today through imperialism and suffering, especially that of African and South American nations.

No worse than the western nations that have their place on the stage due to suffering, of course, but no better either.

Batou667:

I kept that part of my post deliberately brief to try to avoid the usual discussion where exceptions to a rule are used to whittle down definitions to the point where they're useless - but hey, that seems to have happened anyway.

You gave a blanket statement. If a blanket statement doesn't work, don't use it.

Batou667:

Look: a reasonable definition of a cat might be "small, carnivorous quadruped with a tail". If your pet cat suffers an accident and has one leg amputated, it doesn't cease to be a cat despite no longer being strictly quadrupedal. Likewise a soldier who steps on a landmine and loses both legs and his genitals, doesn't cease to be male. He certainly doesn't cease being human. Nobody makes silly arguments like that because that's not the way the human brain works. We all understand, on a very fundamental and intuitive level, that minor changes to the archetype don't automatically render the individual example impossible to categorise.

We are a population of seven billion people. Either we shrug our shoulders and declare that we are seven billion completely unique entities, with seven billion genders and seven billion different sets of behaviours, or else we attempt some kind of categorisation.

Yes, obviously. None of this is anything I argued against.

You did not merely say that general categories exist. Nobody is disputing that, blatantly. You said that nobody who transitions can be a "functional female", which suggests a highly exclusive-- and unworkable-- definition, and one that doesn't take these exceptions into account.

Batou667:

In fact, your post could be read as supporting biological essentialism! Minor physical surgery doesn't fundamentally change the essence of an individuals being; I quite agree. That's why I think arguments for transgenderism from a biological viewpoint are so weak.

"Argument for transgenderism from a biological viewpoint"? I'd suggest you don't actually understand what my argument is if that's how you'd describe it.

Abomination:
You will observe we have only been discussing the sex nature, not the gender here. There has been no confusion.

"Functional female" does not suggest that to me. It suggests using certain aspects of biological sex to build a pretty exclusive vocabulary.

Abomination:

The main issue is that a moderator stated that anything "bordering" on biological essentialism would be considered dehumanizing. As an individual who cares nought for whichever gender someone identifies as - not out of disrespect, but because someone's gender identity does not matter to me, as I treat them equally - I struggle to see how that is dehumanizing someone. I do not claim to have a gender, I only have a sex, as I do not feel any social obligation - personal or otherwise - to assign myself to a particular gender.

Others can identify however they so wish, and I will refer to them with whatever pronoun they desire. I will treat them no differently than any other. That is effectively "biological essentialism" or at least borderline, even though it causes no harm.

Referring to people by their preferred pronoun is quite the opposite of biological essentialism. That's respectful, and is what I would encourage.

Biological essentialism would be refusing to acknowledge somebody's preferred pronoun, to refer to people by the pronoun traditionally associated with their birth sex. That's not respectful (and nor is it scientifically sound, even).

Abomination:
Under no circumstance does expressing this concept state that a person who is incapable of performing either of these functions not a human, not a man, or not a woman. Rather, the only way one can develop the ability to produce sperm is to be born male, or the only way one can develop the ability to produce eggs is to be born female. Being born of a sex comes BEFORE sexual development.

Eggs are produced before a person is born. Typically, a gonadally female fetus produces several million eggs during ovarian development, most of which die off quickly. At birth, only a million remain, and no more will ever be produced by the same person. No human being "produces eggs" during their lifetime.

A person does not need to be "born female" to produce eggs. All they need is to have ovaries, which is why having ovaries is considered significant enough that it's one of the 3/4 ways we actually measure a person's physiological sex.

Sex is not magical. It is not a supernatural mark left on the soul by angels at the point a person is concieved. Sex is the process by which an undifferentiated human zygote becomes a human being with sexual characteristics. This process is accomplished through complex interactions of chemicals within the body, often the same chemicals which trans people use to physically alter their sexed bodies. There is no preexisting essence which predetermines any of it or gives meaning to the outcome, and this kind of magical, scientifically illiterate thinking has no place in a discussion of the topic.

Pardon me, rough work week and didn't feel like responding in this thread without proper sleep.

evilthecat:

Who is perfect?

Who needs to be perfect?

You cannot on one hand say that gender is arbitrary, and then turn around and say that people need to be perfect. Perfect relative to what?

I never said anything about any of that. My entire point with that statement is that that train of logic could be used against you, not that I follow it but that I don't think that is the way you should phrase that argument.

evilthecat:
Now, for me, one of the first times I realised there was something wrong was when I hit puberty and began thinking about the rest of my life, and I found that I desperately wanted to bear my own children. I wanted to nurture a life in that way and to bring it into the world, and the thought that I would never be able to do that caused me intense suffering for a while until I accepted and grew past it. The thing is, I'm adopted. My mother is a cis woman who also cannot bear children, and who went through a very similar experience and a very similar kind of suffering (albeit much later in life). That kind of loss or feeling of imperfection is something many people experience for all kinds of reasons. It's not unique to trans people.

I am sorry if my comment brought up pain from your past, it was not my intent. My only intention with that comment was the train of logic.

evilthecat:
So, the way you feel like you are of a different gender to your assigned sex at birth is to feel like you want to be a different gender to your assigned sex at birth.

There's more to it than that, and if we're going to go any further then we need to talk about dysphoria, but at the end of the day there is nothing mystical about it. It's not some magical sixth sense, it's a powerful, involuntary want which is significant enough to make you unhappy.

But... That can't be the actual reason for why you feel that way. Describing it that way makes it sound just like a monothematic delusion. To say that it is based on nothing and just is what it is in and of itself is to describe an irrational belief. As I said before, I'm autistic and the reason I know I am is because of the traits I have with how I act. There has to be more to why you have the GI that you do, it must be based on actions, personality factors, things like that.

evilthecat:
Like, is this really confusing?

We live in a profoundly gendered society where almost everything about how a person lives or grows up is shaped to some degree by whether they are male or female. You may not want that to be true, but it is true. What it means to be male or female is literally all around us.

Now, that doesn't mean there's an essential definition I can give you. There may be many different perspectives, many different variations and many different cultural contexts as to what it means, but it's still a relevant distinction to make, and thus it's relevant to trans people too.

And so what is the basis for the belief? The reason it is so confusing to me is because things like that article you linked me to make it out to be an irrational delusion and I do not want to believe that that is what you are describing and so I'm trying to dig deeper.

evilthecat:
I'd like to point out how difficult it is not to be deeply insulted by this argument.

I KNOW! But that's what it's describing! Something based on nothing but a belief based on nothing. There must be an actual basis for the identity.

evilthecat:
A person who literally believes they are Queen Elizabeth I is delusional, because they are not Queen Elizabeth I.

But.... but can't that same sentence and its logic be replaced with "A person who literally believes they are a woman despite having the body of a man is delusional, because they are not a woman."? There must be something extra to this that gives it its validity.

evilthecat:
A person who is trans is not delusional. They are completely aware of what their body looks like. They know that they have a male or female body, but they may find it distressing to have the body which they have because it prohibits them from living the social role in which they feel they belong. A trans person does not literally believe they are a different person. Trans people have a clear sense of who they are, but they wish to live socially as a member of a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth. Again, that's really all there is to it, nothing magical.

And wishing to live and be recognized as a different gender has a logical train of thought to it. "I do not feel comfortable with my current sex and wish to be a different sex and feel I would be happier as that sex". That makes sense because it's based on something. It's the believing you are a different gender already without any mental characteristics to point to that I am having trouble with.

evilthecat:
So, if you want to look at being trans as a medical problem analogous to autism (which is problematic, but let's gloss over that) then the traits which lead a person to diagnose a person with GD are that they feel a strong attachment to being and living as a gender other than their assigned sex, which causes them distress. The fact that a person feels that way is the thing that makes them trans.

Autism isn't a medical problem, there are social issues with being autistic and medicine can be prescribed to help alleviate certain aspects of it, but I would not describe it as medical. If being trans truly is based on nothing more than just the belief then I cannot see it as anything other than a delusion. I don't want that to be my conclusion but if that IS indeed what the argument boils down to then that's exactly what it is describing.

evilthecat:
A doctor diagnosing a suspected GD patient will try to get to the bottom of why they feel that way or what specifically they feel is wrong with them, but ultimately it doesn't matter particularly much for the purposes of diagnosis.

No. Having evidence for the basis of a diagnosis DOES matter, end of story. Doctors shouldn't be making diagnoses unless they actually have evidence for the diagnoses. You wouldn't want a doctor to diagnose someone with cancer and have them go through months of chemotherapy only to find out they didn't have cancer would you?

evilthecat:
No. Everyone is assigned a sex.

Sex can be used to describe biological sex, but it's also a legal concept. English language birth certificates, for example, list a person's sex (which can be changed if they apply to legally change sex).

Just as a person would have their wight listed in the certificate, the sex they place on the certificate is based on the person's genitals, it's not assigned, it's based on a physical observation. The role that someone believes you should play because of your sex is assigned but the actual physical sex is not.

evilthecat:
Identity.

Like, you're really going around in circles with this, and I don't know if it's because you fundamentally can't comprehend the concept of identity..

Identity is based on something. Someone has an identity of being black or white based on their skin color. They base their identity of being left or right based on the parts of society the believe need to be addressed by the government. They have an identity of being poor or rich based on how much money they have. An identity cannot just BE, it must be based on something. If your identity is that of being male or female then it must be based on something whether it is mental or physical.

evilthecat:
A male bodied person can be feminine or adopt a feminine expression, but this is a different thing from actually wanting to live as a woman. A male bodied person can enjoy cross dressing and yet be completely secure in the fact that they are a man. A male bodied person can enjoy being receptively penetrated by men and yet have absolutely no doubts that they are happy the way they are.

What defines a trans person is that they want to live as part of a different gender, they do not feel comfortable with the gender they are assigned as and, unless they have transitioned, are not happy about the way they are. That's because being trans is fundamentally about identity, about wanting to actually live as a gender, rather than merely wanting to look and act in ways traditionally associated with that gender. In practice, the way a person goes about transitioning is to look and act like a different gender, but that doesn't mean these are the same thing, because the underlying psychological motivation is different.

And I believe a trans person should be able to transition if they feel that is what they should do. I can agree with the results a trans person wishes to have if it will lead to them living happier lives but I cannot agree with this idea that someone is born mentally male or female while being physically female or male if it is not actually based on anything. I thank you for the discussion but I don't think we'll ultimately be able to come to an agreement on this.

Batou667:

I'm completely open to the idea that I don't know everything and that people might sometimes take offence to my viewpoint - wait a minute, didn't we just have a long thread where many liberal posters decried the use of respectability politics as a way of strong-arming people into silence on subjects they don't really agree with? And yes, of course I'm open to being "corrected", or rather, to being exposed to more and better information so I can update my opinion. It's frustrating that so few people have tried to give this information (EvilTheCat is a notable exception), many posters being content to simply repeat "Shut up, bigot", occasionally couched in pretentious Social Studies terminology. *shrug*

You clearly misread the point of my topic.

Specter Von Baren:

But.... but can't that same sentence and its logic be replaced with "A person who literally believes they are a woman despite having the body of a man is delusional, because they are not a woman."?

That's an entirely different argument.

"Queen Elizabeth I" is very narrowly defined as a specific (deceased) individual.

"Woman" is not. In terms of gender, It has a definition which is broader, and is not necessarily limited by specific body parts.

Batou667:

I'm completely open to the idea that I don't know everything and that people might sometimes take offence to my viewpoint - wait a minute, didn't we just have a long thread where many liberal posters decried the use of respectability politics as a way of strong-arming people into silence on subjects they don't really agree with?

That's because there's an immense difference between civility towards political positions, which may or may not be deserving of respect, and civility towards someone's innate or personal characteristics. The distinction is obvious.

Silvanus:

Specter Von Baren:

But.... but can't that same sentence and its logic be replaced with "A person who literally believes they are a woman despite having the body of a man is delusional, because they are not a woman."?

That's an entirely different argument.

"Queen Elizabeth I" is very narrowly defined as a specific (deceased) individual.

"Woman" is not. In terms of gender, It has a definition which is broader, and is not necessarily limited by specific body parts.

To piggy back on Silvanus's apt point, it's the reason why if they found a way to perfectly clone your mind via AI and placed it into a robot, you will not suddenly have two perspectives in life and you'll be able to experience both perceptions in real time at once.

We are what we are in our body now. Even if you copy our brain waves, that isn't who we are now. It is a copy that can never come close to the real thing.

Now, what does that prove really? Simply put, it isn't the vessel that we inhabit. It's the brain directing the show. Soul/spirit to some. More on that aspect later.

If the brain is calling the shots and you're strictly into science, I got good news! You don't have to understand it. Because Science has that shit on lock

Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to findings to be presented in Barcelona, at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting, ECE 2018. These findings suggest that differences in brain function may occur early in development and that brain imaging may be a useful tool for earlier identification of transgenderism in young people.

Transgenderism is the experience, or identification with, a gender different to the assigned biological sex, whilst gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress experienced by transgender people, and may be present from a very young age. Although GD incidence is rare, gender identity is an essential part of psychological health, and if unaddressed can lead to serious psychological issues. Current strategies for addressing GD in younger people involve psychotherapy, or delaying puberty with hormones, so that decisions on transgender therapy can be made at an older age. Genetics and hormones contribute to sex differences in brain development and function that lead to more male- or female-typical characteristics; however, these processes are not well established. Furthermore, little is known on how early in life, or to what extent, the gender-typical characteristics of transgender people become established. Earlier diagnosis or better understanding of transgenderism could help to improve quality of life for young transgender people, and help families to make more informed decisions on treatment.

In this study, Dr. Julie Bakker from the University of Li?ge, Belgium, and her colleagues from the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the VU University Medical Center, the Netherlands, examined sex differences in the brain activation patterns of young transgender people. The study included both adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria and used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to assess brain activation patterns in response to a pheromone known to produce gender-specific activity. The pattern of brain activation in both transgender adolescent boys and girls more closely resembled that of non-transgender boys and girls of their desired gender. In addition, GD adolescent girls showed a male-typical brain activation pattern during a visual/spatial memory exercise. Finally, some brain structural changes were detected that were also more similar, but not identical, to those typical of the desired gender of GD boys and girls.

Dr Bakker says, "Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender."

Dr Bakker's research will now investigate the role of hormones during puberty on brain development and transgender differences, to help guide and improve future diagnosis and therapy for GD adolescents.

Dr Bakker comments, "We will then be better equipped to support these young people, instead of just sending them to a psychiatrist and hoping that their distress will disappear spontaneously."

Nice and tidy in case you didn't want to click. Literally, Transgendered minds are closer to the gender they identify with than the brains their physical gender normally have. To go back to my Brain wave copied Robot, guess what? That Robot is going to believe it's a human because the programming that's running it has memories, feelings, ideas, and concepts that are based on a human brain. It will have a gender, a belief system (or lack there of), and opinion if the copy was a 100 percent successful.

Of course, we're far away from that, but we've taken some steps.

But back to the soul/spirit side of things... That's not in our control either. If we were born with souls as some pro-life advocates say, then we aren't determined. We were made with this ethereal, magical stuff that we had no hand in creating. That is essentially us already. Which means once again, this isn't a choice. That means the soul placed into our bodies was female in a transgendered male, or male into a transgendered female.

If you want to go the strict science route, we're showing that it is an actual mapping of the brain that is different from the phenotype presented. If you want to go the spiritual route, if souls were created from on high, we had no ability to shape or create how we were going to be. So once again that's not on us.

From both standards, it just seems like Transgendered are who they were born to be. It's not for us to understand (although Science is backing them up). It's for us to accept and move on with our lives.

Kyle Gaddo:
It doesn't have to make sense to you.

It kind of does, though. Not him personally, but you know, in general.

Because if you can't make people understand what you're doing and why you're asking for different treatment, it won't be societally accepted. Being comfortable in yourself is all well and good, but as soon as you are changing things in a way which impacts other people you do owe them an explanation. You do need dialogue. Otherwise people will just say "no".

Specter Von Baren:
I never said anything about any of that. My entire point with that statement is that that train of logic could be used against you, not that I follow it but that I don't think that is the way you should phrase that argument.

Okay, so your original point was that you don't understand why anyone who lived in a society in which men and women were considered equal and which rejected gender stereotypes would nonetheless identify with a gender to the point of wanting to transition. It's actually the same point Satinavian made a little while back in this thread.

So, there are a lot of ways I could respond to this, but the one I chose is to point out that just because our society broadly holds gender equality to be an ideal doesn't mean it is genderless. Heck, it doesn't even mean it is actually gender equal in practice. For one, most people don't really want to live in a genderless society. Most people, even people who think that men and women should be equal or who reject gender stereotypes, still look, think and act in a gendered way.

Like, you've got these trans-exclusionary feminists who are all like "abolish gender" and "everyone is non-binary", but when you meet them in reality they're almost universally just basic middle aged women who think that wearing jeans or flat shoes makes them some kind of gender anarchist.

We do not live in anything remotely approximating a genderless society.

Specter Von Baren:
I am sorry if my comment brought up pain from your past, it was not my intent.

It didn't cause me any pain. I was telling you that story voluntarily to help you understand that perfection isn't necessary. Plenty of cis women aren't "perfect" women, but that's not a requirement.

We all have this idea or fantasy of who we want to be, especially when we're growing up. Maybe we want to be supermodels, but we aren't tall enough. Maybe we want to play professional sports, but it turns out we don't have the physique. Our identity isn't just what we want to be, it's often the compromise we come to when we realise we can't be everything we want to be. A lot of people attack trans people by claiming being trans is some kind of wish fulfilment, but being trans is a compromise.. it's the same kind of compromise every person goes through. You accept that you're not perfect, and you get over it.

The fact that we live in a society which finds it so hard to accept any kind of imperfection when it comes to how a person presents or embodies gender should probably be a bit of a clue that maybe we don't live in a genderless society.

Specter Von Baren:
And so what is the basis for the belief? The reason it is so confusing to me is because things like that article you linked me to make it out to be an irrational delusion and I do not want to believe that that is what you are describing and so I'm trying to dig deeper.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe all gender is an irrational delusion? It's just an irrational delusion which every single person (including yourself) collectively buys into and lives their live around.

Part of the "delusion" is structuring your entire life, presentation and social role around the shape of your genitals and pretending that isn't a deeply irrational thing to do because hey, those genitals physically exist! But, for some reason, we do live in a society where that is a normal thing which most people do to one degree or another.

Specter Von Baren:
But.... but can't that same sentence and its logic be replaced with "A person who literally believes they are a woman despite having the body of a man is delusional, because they are not a woman."? There must be something extra to this that gives it its validity.

Why does "having the body of a man" make you a man?

Is it "rational" to believe that literal inches of flesh attached to your body somehow makes you a completely different person. That it completely determines everything about your life from the moment you are born until the moment you die?

Trans people are entirely aware of what bodies they have, in fact one symptom of being trans is an excessive awareness of your body. There is no delusion. There is no belief in something that isn't real. Being trans is not a matter of looking at your penis and literally seeing a vagina, or believing that you are a completely different person to the person you really are. It is, boiled down to its raw essence, merely the desire to live in a different social position to the one required by your body (in this incredibly fucked up society which somehow defines your social position in relation to insignificant features of your body).

Specter Von Baren:
No. Having evidence for the basis of a diagnosis DOES matter, end of story.

Okay, but identity is not a physical concept. The evidence of identity is the subjective experience of identity. We all have a subjective experience of identity, we all have a sense of who we are. We can tell, because people get very upset when something challenges their sense of who they are or when there is a disconnect between how people percieve themselves or how others percieve them. It's a well documented and extremely well researched feature of human psychology, which it's kind of weird not to believe in at this point.

Specter Von Baren:
Just as a person would have their wight listed in the certificate, the sex they place on the certificate is based on the person's genitals, it's not assigned, it's based on a physical observation.

It is assigned on the basis of a physical observation.

Nowadays, it is possible in many countries to defer assigning sex to intersexed children, but before that was the case there were quite complex medical criteria for how to assign sex to people with ambiguous genitalia, and they reflected social and medical priorities about what is most likely to enable someone to live a "normal" life as a member of that sex, and what would be easiest to accomplish surgery (because intersexed children were also often surgically altered without their consent). Often, these priorities were deeply contradictory and reflected societal views about sex which were rooted in stereotypes.

Specter Von Baren:
Identity is based on something. Someone has an identity of being black or white based on their skin color.

Not really.

There are ethnic groups living in Africa who refer to each other as "black" and "white" despite all being indigenous Africans. Many people can be "black" in one situation and "white" in another depending on how their race is interpreted.

A person does not independently come to the conclusion they are black from looking at their skin colour. They need to live in a society where being black or white matters, where it determines something about your experience and how you are treated. Race isn't about skin colour, there are millions and millions of variations on human skin colour and they don't ultimately mean anything. Race is about the cultural legacy of racism, which was the irrational idea that humanity was divided up into discreet groups called "races" which formed a natural hierarchy. Skin colour only mattered because it was one of the most prominent external markers of race, but the racial hierarchy could just as easily be applied to people who had almost identical skin colour.

That hierarchy, incidentally, is why being "transracial" isn't the same thing as being "transgender". The identity of race is an imposed identity, not a voluntary identity, because you can't really separate race from power. Gender is historically a hierarchy, but it's also something everyone participates in relatively voluntarily. Again, even people who believe in gender equality or claim that gender isn't "real" still "do" gender.

Specter Von Baren:
And I believe a trans person should be able to transition if they feel that is what they should do. I can agree with the results a trans person wishes to have if it will lead to them living happier lives but I cannot agree with this idea that someone is born mentally male or female while being physically female or male if it is not actually based on anything.

I don't believe a person is born anything other than a screaming ball of barely-formed flesh.

But if you're going to believe that identity isn't real, if you're going to believe that it doesn't actually have concrete effects on a person and can't be evidenced, then there's not really room to debate, because you've adopted a position which is immune to science, to reason and to basic evidence.

Ultimately, human thoughts are physical things. They are electrical impulses moving through a network of physical tissue. This doesn't mean we can ascribe a simple, causal relationship and say that gender identity is caused by the shape of the hypothalamus or something (although we can't completely rule it out either) but we do owe it to ourselves to treat human thoughts with a degree of seriousness, because they are literally our own minds. They are the cognitive tools we are using to understand the world. What we think matters.

Stockings, wigs, make up and heels. These used to be things MEN did.

Used to be women wore skirts, NEVER pants. Then women started wearing pants, and were called crossdressers and weirdos. Then companies started marketing pants to women. I once had a woman argue that it is ok for women to wear pants because they make pants for women. That wasn't true 100 years ago in the US.

Catnip1024:

Kyle Gaddo:
It doesn't have to make sense to you.

It kind of does, though. Not him personally, but you know, in general.

Because if you can't make people understand what you're doing and why you're asking for different treatment, it won't be societally accepted. Being comfortable in yourself is all well and good, but as soon as you are changing things in a way which impacts other people you do owe them an explanation. You do need dialogue. Otherwise people will just say "no".

How do you think they want to be treated differently. Generally, they want to be treated like everyone else.

Or is different here a relative term, meaning comparatively how they were treated 50 or 100 years ago.

For example, Trump wanting to ban veterans using their government health insurance for gender reassignment surgery. Are transgender people asking for more Rights? No. They aren't changing the veteran policies, Are we asking for surgeries that were traditionally no acceptable 50 years ago? Yes.

There could be an argument here about elective versus necessary surgeries. Reassignment surgery is elective but so is anything to do with prosthetics. (Well, I'm not American. I am assuming here based on my country. Health policies could be very different.)

But that's not the argument. The argument is that the government shouldn't pay for something that has a political angle. Becuase the existence Trans people is way too political in some people's eyes.

We're having a similar issue in Austrlalia at the moment. How much Religious Freedom should schools have? Becuase that Religious Freedom can include bullying LBGT students. Are the LBGT community asking for more Rights? No. They want NOT to be bullied like everyone else. Is that how we traditionally treat that community? Traditionally we locked them up (even 30 years ago.) And religious institutions are notorious for treating the LBGT community terribly. So it is a change in traditional norms. Becuase traditional norms were biased.

So being 'treated differently'depends on whether you think they should be treated like everyone else, or treated traditionally.

trunkage:
For example, Trump wanting to ban veterans using their government health insurance for gender reassignment surgery. Are transgender people asking for more Rights? No. They aren't changing the veteran policies, Are we asking for surgeries that were traditionally no acceptable 50 years ago? Yes.

Which was also the case with insurance. GRS used to be covered under many insurances until TERFs pitched a fit, then people started to get upset when insurances started covering it again.

We have fewer options, and people are upset because it's too many.

Bathrooms were largely a non-issue until someone decided we'd make a great wedge issue.

trunkage:
How do you think they want to be treated differently. Generally, they want to be treated like everyone else.

You misunderstand my statement. The intended point being that transgender people want to be treated differently to how they were previously, not to how anybody else is necessarily. The whole bathroom thing, for instance. You do need a level of understanding from other people for that to work.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of intellectual dishonesty.

Or just being wrong. There's plenty of room for people to just not know things about a topic, or to understand how things work sufficiently poorly that they cannot grasp a correct answer. Or, in terms of having things explained to them, that they do not trust the person telling them as a reliable source.

Batou667:

Categories are at least partially negotiated. Self-determination only goes so far. Although I mentioned that self-expression is a right, it doesn't logically follow that the other 7 billion people on our planet are compelled to uncritically accept that expression, because of course they're all free agents as well.

Although in a liberal society, you would expect acceptance of self-expression to come pretty high.

Hence why I'm very suspicious about self-expressed liberals who seem awful keen not to allow people self-expression.

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
How do you think they want to be treated differently. Generally, they want to be treated like everyone else.

You misunderstand my statement. The intended point being that transgender people want to be treated differently to how they were previously, not to how anybody else is necessarily. The whole bathroom thing, for instance. You do need a level of understanding from other people for that to work.

I understand that the bathroom situation is mostly oppressive to masculine women.

Catnip1024:
The intended point being that transgender people want to be treated differently to how they were previously, not to how anybody else is necessarily. The whole bathroom thing, for instance. You do need a level of understanding from other people for that to work.

The bathroom thing is a bad example, it only became a big issue fairly recently when the usual suspects wanted some new thing to oppress people with, presumably because they saw that their legal attacks on gay people weren't working so much anymore. The way things were previously was a step up.

Thaluikhain:
The bathroom thing is a bad example, it only became a big issue fairly recently when the usual suspects wanted some new thing to oppress people with, presumably because they saw that their legal attacks on gay people weren't working so much anymore. The way things were previously was a step up.

I mean, it is not the greatest of examples, but whatever you pick people will rabbit-hole - participation in sport, state subsidisation of healthcare costs, etc.

And ultimately, it's a wider point that isn't even specific to transgender issues. Anybody demanding societal change owes society an explanation of it, and to attempt to get the point understood. Whether it's this, gun laws, individual rights, whatever. It doesn't matter if the majority of people don't agree with you - the point is you need an explanation and a justification for what you are trying to change. Simply saying "you don't have to understand" doesn't really work on a large scale.

Note that this is referring specifically to the things that impact on other people, rather than any individual right to do whatever you want when it doesn't impact on others.

Never mind the peripheral factors of men and women being more "naturally" suited to certain tasks in life (it's doubtful the construction crew I see every day on my drive home currently building an overpass in 30 degree weather will consist primarily of women, just as men will probably never able to physically care for an infant as well as a woman for example). We're not going to reinvent the wheel here in other words, and it's kinda pointless to try but kudos to anyone who?d wish atttempting.

However, here's a more pertinent question (apologies if it's already been addressed; have not the time to scan through this massive thread):

Do you think one day science/medical advancements will yield the ability to realign brain chemistry to be more harmonious with the body's physically assigned gender? I mean, we're trying to basically do the opposite currently which is still little more than Frankenstein'ing it. Although, I can see how that might open up a new clusterfuck of a debate as far as ethics and privacy go.

Humans. On the curve of knowing nothing to having it all figured out, I reckon we're still far closer to the former than we'd like to believe.

Catnip1024:
It kind of does, though. Not him personally, but you know, in general.

Because if you can't make people understand what you're doing and why you're asking for different treatment, it won't be societally accepted. Being comfortable in yourself is all well and good, but as soon as you are changing things in a way which impacts other people you do owe them an explanation. You do need dialogue. Otherwise people will just say "no".

The impact on others is usually negligible. The impact on the trans individual, however, is demonstrably much larger.

That's what it comes down to, if we want to reduce this argument to impact alone.

If people don't have direct experience, they're quite unlikely to understand it intuitively. And we know from observation that people are often very unwilling to put much effort into understanding things outside of their comfort zone. Does that mean those things lack validity? Obviously not.

Those with direct experience and those with expertise in the field both provide the valuable insight. They might not have all the answers, but they damn well know better than your average man-on-the-street. Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

Silvanus:
The impact on others is usually negligible. The impact on the trans individual, however, is demonstrably much larger.

That's what it comes down to, if we want to reduce this argument to impact alone.

If people don't have direct experience, they're quite unlikely to understand it intuitively. And we know from observation that people are often very unwilling to put much effort into understanding things outside of their comfort zone. Does that mean those things lack validity? Obviously not.

Those with direct experience and those with expertise in the field both provide the valuable insight. They might not have all the answers, but they damn well know better than your average man-on-the-street. Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

That's not what it comes down to at all. The point being, what people do to themselves (not meant in a bad way, before someone takes it wrong) is their own business, done at their own risk and their own problem. When it interfaces with other people, you are inflicting involuntary changes upon others. Again, this isn't specific to transgender people, this is a general rebuttal of the "you don't have to understand" logic.

Take weed. Someone smokes weed in the privacy of their own home - that's their problem. They do it out where I run, and I get a draft and it throws me off, that suddenly is my problem as well. Sure, it impacts them much more than it does me, but the point is I was nothing to do with the smoking weed yet am suddenly impacted without any consent or discussion of the matter.

That's what I mean by the boundaries with society. Changes people want to accommodate transgender people do impact on other people, and as such you need dialogue. If you don't have dialogue, why should you expect people to change things to accommodate you?

To point out - I have no real issue with transgender people at all. What people do is their own business, and the whole changing room issue isn't one that ranks particularly high on my list of things that are wrong with the universe. My issue here is just the use of the particular argument as a rebuttal to a person asking questions.

Silvanus:
Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

That's great and all, but they still get to vote. If the average man on the street doesn't care, then in a democratic society there is very little chance one will obtain a favorable outcome.

Remember, the issue here is when they are told "you don't have to understand" an then are expected to do something or think a certain way. As frustrating as it might sound, very few are willing to do that.

Catnip1024:

Silvanus:
The impact on others is usually negligible. The impact on the trans individual, however, is demonstrably much larger.

That's what it comes down to, if we want to reduce this argument to impact alone.

If people don't have direct experience, they're quite unlikely to understand it intuitively. And we know from observation that people are often very unwilling to put much effort into understanding things outside of their comfort zone. Does that mean those things lack validity? Obviously not.

Those with direct experience and those with expertise in the field both provide the valuable insight. They might not have all the answers, but they damn well know better than your average man-on-the-street. Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

That's not what it comes down to at all. The point being, what people do to themselves (not meant in a bad way, before someone takes it wrong) is their own business, done at their own risk and their own problem. When it interfaces with other people, you are inflicting involuntary changes upon others. Again, this isn't specific to transgender people, this is a general rebuttal of the "you don't have to understand" logic.

Take weed. Someone smokes weed in the privacy of their own home - that's their problem. They do it out where I run, and I get a draft and it throws me off, that suddenly is my problem as well. Sure, it impacts them much more than it does me, but the point is I was nothing to do with the smoking weed yet am suddenly impacted without any consent or discussion of the matter.

That's what I mean by the boundaries with society. Changes people want to accommodate transgender people do impact on other people, and as such you need dialogue. If you don't have dialogue, why should you expect people to change things to accommodate you?

To point out - I have no real issue with transgender people at all. What people do is their own business, and the whole changing room issue isn't one that ranks particularly high on my list of things that are wrong with the universe. My issue here is just the use of the particular argument as a rebuttal to a person asking questions.

And how am I giving people second-hand trans? Accommodating trans people really has such minimal impact on others, far less than most things do. If expecting people to give a basic amount of respect to others is such a burden on someone, that is on them.

I hate religion, but it doesn't offend me if people want to wear a religious garment or something that shows their faith. Even if I disagree with religious people, as long as they aren't pushing their religion to oppress me, and I assure you nothing trans people want is pushing anything on anyone beyond wanting the same basic level of respect we all deserve, then let them love Jesus or Allah or whoever.

But pushing all this BS outdated and not even scientifically sound gender norms on me and everyone else has got to go.

Abomination:

Silvanus:
Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

That's great and all, but they still get to vote. If the average man on the street doesn't care, then in a democratic society there is very little chance one will obtain a favorable outcome.

Remember, the issue here is when they are told "you don't have to understand" an then are expected to do something or think a certain way. As frustrating as it might sound, very few are willing to do that.

Well, they didn't accept "Steve was born with lady parts and it didn't suit him", what else we got? How would you steel-man this "understanding"?

Abomination:

Batou667:
I'm sure this is well-intentioned but it's one of the least helpful things I've read in this mostly civil, mostly constructive thread. I don't see anybody here who is intentionally trolling or being malicious so it seems disproportionate to start brandishing the banhammer on the mere suspicion that some people might be about to express wrongthink.

Hell, this is the kind of thing Samtemdo alluded to in the very first reply in the thread, the fact that even the mildest critique or less than partisan framing of the issues surrounding Transgenderism is declared harmful or abusive by the gatekeepers of discussion. That's counterproductive. You don't win allies with hostility.

So just to be clear, are you saying that if I was to say that medical science overwhelmingly says that humans are a sexually dimorphic species, usually very clearly dilineated into a sexual binary, and that there currently exists no medical procedure that can fundamentally change a male into a functional female and vice versa; that would be "dehumanising"?

I have to echo this sentiment. Seems as though the discussion does not allow someone to approach it from certain point of view without being told their line of thinking is unacceptable and deserves silencing.

Rather by attempting such moderation methods you force a discussion towards a single outcome: accept this interpretation or be banned.

I've spent a lot of time considering my reply, so I apologize if others have covered this territory.

There's a difference between asking questions to understand and harboring opinions that dehumanize. My comment was mostly in regard to things KingsGambit was saying. I don't want anyone to think that that kind of speech is acceptable.

Transgender people are simply trying to exist. They want to feel comfortable in their skin. They want to lead happy and healthy lives without questioning their very bodies or how they fit into society or if the world around them even deems them worthy of breath.

Transgender people do not want, need, or deserve critique. The existence of transgender people is not something that is largely even worth critiquing because it has absolutely no effect on you.

If anything, the science that you claim to swear by needs critique, because, throughout history, science has been wrong again and again and again. It was wrong when Plato pioneered a geocentric model of the universe. It was wrong when Isaac Newton thought he could turn mercury into gold by consuming it and subsequently died due to mercury poisoning.

There's no such thing as perfect science and recognizing that and realizing that our understanding of existence is more limited than the size of our mouths.

There are actually various outcomes that I would hope to achieve in diminishing dehumanizing talk and doing away with "wrongthink" like biological essentialism:
1. You admit you don't know enough and reconsider your perspective.
2. You admit you don't know enough and don't reconsider your perspective, but you ultimately remove yourself from the conversation, because it doesn't concern you.
3. You take the time to learn more about a subject you deem yourself passionate about.

This extends beyond the binary nature of men and women. Your understanding of gender within a social structure and its application in culture needs to widen. It needs to extend to the biological level of individuals born with extra or missing chromosomes to the softer understanding that people don't socially want to adhere to preconceived notions of what gender is or isn't, or even on the mere fact that someone simply feels uncomfortable in their own skin.

With all this, you have a choice, which I softly outlined above, but will clarify for you here.

What you believe is me "forcing" you to accept a certain outcome is me offering you a choice: to either reconsider and expand your own understanding of a subject or continue to spout ill-informed, closed-minded "facts" that are tantamount to dehumanizing speech (which go against our rules) and be moderated appropriately.

Ask questions. Be open. Be understanding. What you don't know is vastly more infinite than what you do. And you would do well to remember that every day you're alive.

A lot of OP's questions are really simple and, instead of asking for explanations from a forum populated predominantly by cisgendered, heterosexual men, OP would be better advised to look into what actual trans people have said about it.

ContraPoints is always a great place to start:

EDIT: Okay so apparently the YouTube embed feature is not working properly. The video that I am trying to link can be seen here https://youtu.be/9bbINLWtMKI

altnameJag:

Abomination:

Silvanus:
Frankly, if that man-on-the-street doesn't want to make even the smallest of adjustments, and directly contradicts the testimony of those with greater experience or expertise than themselves, then there's a good chance they have their heads up their asses.

That's great and all, but they still get to vote. If the average man on the street doesn't care, then in a democratic society there is very little chance one will obtain a favorable outcome.

Remember, the issue here is when they are told "you don't have to understand" an then are expected to do something or think a certain way. As frustrating as it might sound, very few are willing to do that.

Well, they didn't accept "Steve was born with lady parts and it didn't suit him", what else we got? How would you steel-man this "understanding"?

By not trying to steel-man it in the first place. Because the first question most will think of is "Why does Steve think this?" and for many people, even the IDEA of sex and gender being two different things is alien to them.

Kyle Gaddo:
I've spent a lot of time considering my reply, so I apologize if others have covered this territory.

There's a difference between asking questions to understand and harboring opinions that dehumanize. My comment was mostly in regard to things KingsGambit was saying. I don't want anyone to think that that kind of speech is acceptable.

Transgender people are simply trying to exist. They want to feel comfortable in their skin. They want to lead happy and healthy lives without questioning their very bodies or how they fit into society or if the world around them even deems them worthy of breath.

Transgender people do not want, need, or deserve critique. The existence of transgender people is not something that is largely even worth critiquing because it has absolutely no effect on you.

If anything, the science that you claim to swear by needs critique, because, throughout history, science has been wrong again and again and again. It was wrong when Plato pioneered a geocentric model of the universe. It was wrong when Isaac Newton thought he could turn mercury into gold by consuming it and subsequently died due to mercury poisoning.

There's no such thing as perfect science and recognizing that and realizing that our understanding of existence is more limited than the size of our mouths.

There are actually various outcomes that I would hope to achieve in diminishing dehumanizing talk and doing away with "wrongthink" like biological essentialism:
1. You admit you don't know enough and reconsider your perspective.
2. You admit you don't know enough and don't reconsider your perspective, but you ultimately remove yourself from the conversation, because it doesn't concern you.
3. You take the time to learn more about a subject you deem yourself passionate about.

This extends beyond the binary nature of men and women. Your understanding of gender within a social structure and its application in culture needs to widen. It needs to extend to the biological level of individuals born with extra or missing chromosomes to the softer understanding that people don't socially want to adhere to preconceived notions of what gender is or isn't, or even on the mere fact that someone simply feels uncomfortable in their own skin.

With all this, you have a choice, which I softly outlined above, but will clarify for you here.

What you believe is me "forcing" you to accept a certain outcome is me offering you a choice: to either reconsider and expand your own understanding of a subject or continue to spout ill-informed, closed-minded "facts" that are tantamount to dehumanizing speech (which go against our rules) and be moderated appropriately.

Ask questions. Be open. Be understanding. What you don't know is vastly more infinite than what you do. And you would do well to remember that every day you're alive.

I fear that people were misconstruing the position KingsGambit was approaching from. They admitted they understand the separation between sex and gender and how one can have a different gender from their sex. What was puzzling to KingsGambit was someone transitioning BETWEEN genders as was seeking clarification on if there are any requirements for that beyond just declaring it so.

It was a fair question to ask, but they were met with dismissive hostility and got caught in the familiar having to jump through language hoops marathon.

I am what would be called a "trans ally", I fully support their status as being recognized as an option on a census, that gender need not match sex, that they can use whatever bathroom they so choose and be referred to to pronoun accordingly. At the same time I can only accept the idea of there being two genders, much like how there are only two sexes. One can be of "opposite" sexes and genders. Some (as in very, very, very few) might blur the lines between the sexes on a genetic level, but ultimately they will land on one side or the other.

My stance is not dehumanising, it just might reject someone else's assertion as to what they are.

At the same time I am entirely egalitarian towards people. Race, sex (and therefore gender), and sexuality, or any other circumstance of their birth, hold no importance to me. They're merely identifying aspects of a person if I wanted to describe them in a line up of other people. Much like the colour of their eyes or hair, their height, or perhaps a defining physical feature like a widow's peak or a birthmark. It does bring the idea of gender into question as almost an unnecessary aspect to one's personality for me, but it fills the role of identifying some people in a line up so I'll begrudgingly make use of it.

Under no circumstance was the opinion that "IF YOU WERE BORN WITH A PENIS THEN YOU ARE, ALWAYS WILL, AND MUST IDENTIFY AS A DUDE" presented... and heck, even if it was, it would not be "dehumanising". Disrespectful, backwards, and insulting - certainly, but not dehumanising.

Abomination:
My stance is not dehumanising, it just might reject someone else's assertion as to what they are.

I hate to break it to you, bud, but denying someone else's right to self-identify is pretty dehumanizing. Even under your own definition, it's disrespectful and insulting. Why would you willingly reject someone's assertion as to how they feel or who they are?

At the very least, let me put it this way:

If your name is Robert and someone insists on calling you Bob, that's likely not going to make you feel good. Why is this other person being so insensitive as to ignore your wishes? Why would they willingly go out of their way to to call you something else than what you have asked to be called?

Just because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that your definition is applicable to everyone. And you'd do well to analyze your definition, why you have it, and maybe why it's not as good as you think it is.

Time to study up, because dehumanization takes many forms.

Kyle Gaddo:

Abomination:
My stance is not dehumanising, it just might reject someone else's assertion as to what they are.

I hate to break it to you, bud, but denying someone else's right to self-identify is pretty dehumanizing. Even under your own definition, it's disrespectful and insulting. Why would you willingly reject someone's assertion as to how they feel or who they are?

At the very least, let me put it this way:

If your name is Robert and someone insists on calling you Bob, that's likely not going to make you feel good. Why is this other person being so insensitive as to ignore your wishes? Why would they willingly go out of their way to to call you something else than what you have asked to be called?

Just because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that your definition is applicable to everyone. And you'd do well to analyze your definition, why you have it, and maybe why it's not as good as you think it is.

Time to study up, because dehumanization takes many forms.

I literally can not deny someone else the right to self-identify because I have no such power or authority.

I can believe someone to be misinformed or incorrect as to how they identify.

My definition of dehumanising would be to treat and/or consider someone less than human. To disagree with someone is not to dehumanise them, because it requires to acknowledge that the person has an opinion in the first place.

Someone intentionally calling me the wrong name is not dehumanising me. They're being a jackass, wilfully ignorant, or intentionally rude. It is in no where akin to attempting to classify me as a separate species or an object.

Finally, your examples of dehumanisation do not include one instance of refusing to refer to an individual by their identified gender, or even make a tangential mention of it.

I agree that it is insulting to intentionally refer to someone as a different gender than the one they identify as, but come on, it's not dehumanising. Slavery is dehumanising, forced eugenics is dehumanising, ethnic purges are dehumanising. Being assaulted or raped for being trans is not dehumanising but it sure is a hate crime. Let's not adopt some sort of Pseudo-Godwin's Law to any discussion about gender identity. It is rude, but not one of the worst possible things you could do to a human.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here