A Person Uses Transgender Law To Expose Gender Discrimination

[jurnag12]

All I can really take away from this is, transgender law is pretty complicated. Either we create a system for legally recognizing people as male or female, or we just shrug and go with a system that anyone can abuse.

Actually transgender legal protections are insanely difficult to abuse, while the people who abuse them do such as blatant false flag political move... There really isn't any incentive to abuse trans protections in the law. For instance trans bathroom access laws don't make peeping in a public restroom any less illegal, there are already people who peep int their own restrooms, and trans people are easy to identify in these situations. No trans person who hasn't transitioned is going to have the need to, or will, use trans protections, that means any trans person who needs to be verified is transitioning, or has transitioned. Which in turn means there is a medical and often legal record of the transition, which means proving transness is rather easy. Gender non-conforming people are outliers, but also fairly easy to identify when evaluated.

Your idea is either throw the baby out with the bathwater in a way that hurts the most vulnerable in society, or anarchy... Which is unrealistic when there is a middle ground. That middle ground is to punish people who abuse the system, because they're not flipping hard to identify.

Well, if that's the case then I think this thread is officially concluded. I don't see any practical argument to be had from this incident other than the structural integrity of transgender law. My only question is, how do you legally prove that someone was abusing the system?

"Why hello there good sir, would you care to provide proof from a licensed physician/psychologist indicating that you've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria?"

No one here is demanding medical proof. This guy didn't even bother putting on a woman's pants suit when making his claim then contradicted himself when trying to explain how he was discriminated against when he claimed to be trans. All he proved was that he has no idea what being transgender actually freaking means. All that should be necessary is someone presenting as their desired gender's bare minimum identifiable presentation... Like a trans woman, cross-dresser, or drag queen might wear women's clothing, perfume, shoes, makeup, a wig, and/or breast forms. Medical conformation is only absolutely necessary if it becomes a point of legal contention and the person in question needs to prove they were discriminated against to a court of law.

Does that sound reasonable to you? It's not like a bar has anything to loose giving a cross-dresser, drag queen, or any visibly trans person the ladies' night benefits after all. Especially because that will attract people who are attracted to cross-dressers, drag queens, and trans people, which would diversify a bar's appeal that particular night.

Wow, chill the fuck out, I'm on your side here! I'm not asking for people to run around with medical paperwork, I was just reacting to the question of how to prove how this jackass was abusing the system besides just going by his own words.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Wow, chill the fuck out, I'm on your side here! I'm not asking for people to run around with medical paperwork, I was just reacting to the question of how to prove how this jackass was abusing the system besides just going by his own words.

Woah, I wasn't trying to be mean to you, or anything like that. I was just trying to make it clear that what you said in quotes there wasn't a rational or reasonable way to handle things. I hope that post didn't read as angry at you, and I apologize if it did.

 

[Maze1125]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

Well first off I'm not angry, nor was I angry, exasperated, yes, angry, not really... Your argument is one of one that we shouldn't hold people to any standards where they have to prove what they're saying, or at least that's what it sounds like to me... Although if I'm just misunderstanding and we've come to contention just on the sexual dimorphism of the brain... I still disagree that it's a factor we should avoid using, we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of other factors, but it's one that should be looked at. The more and better data we have on the subject, the better we can understand the subject after all.

I didn't say any of that.
What I said is that using brain structures to identify gender is exactly as problematic as using genitals to identify gender.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, but it does mean that it shouldn't be used as evidence to prove that someone isn't transgender.

P.S. Nice way to quote mine a short post just to try to invalidate me... That's not intellectually dishonest at all(massive sarcasm)...

I quoted in that way because it was the part of the post I felt I needed to address.
The alternative would have been to quote the entire post but still respond in the exact same way. Thereby hiding the fact I was responding to a specific part but avoiding the backlash.

You can always dissect a persons post, like I'm doing here, by splitting the post into various quotes, just as you've done. You can also do an "emphasis mine" by making the relevant part of a quoted post bold. I just feel you ignored important details to contest a small part of my post.

Fair enough. In retrospect I suspect this problem occurred due to the misinterpretation of what each other was saying.

Yet, apparently, being explicit about what I'm doing is intellectually dishonest, while hiding it would be honest. Somehow.

Well back to what I just said, it's always an option to bold a post or pick an emphasis with bold tags... I apologize for being hostile, I was cranky about other things at the time and I lashed out at you because I was already irritable and being exasperated with you didn't help. Still I'll be blunt here, addressing the entire post is something I generally find to be good form, unless you(or I, because I try to hold myself to this standard too. Don't always succeed, but I do try.) explicitly state that the part you took is the only part that's relevant, or that you have a problem with. Again sorry for being cranky with you. I do understand your position, I just find it to be rejecting a method on the basis it could hurt on the smaller scale, when on the larger scale it's important to understanding and backing up trans identities.

Thank you for your apology.

 

[Saelune]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

Well first off I'm not angry, nor was I angry, exasperated, yes, angry, not really... Your argument is one of one that we shouldn't hold people to any standards where they have to prove what they're saying, or at least that's what it sounds like to me... Although if I'm just misunderstanding and we've come to contention just on the sexual dimorphism of the brain... I still disagree that it's a factor we should avoid using, we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of other factors, but it's one that should be looked at. The more and better data we have on the subject, the better we can understand the subject after all.

I didn't say any of that.
What I said is that using brain structures to identify gender is exactly as problematic as using genitals to identify gender.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, but it does mean that it shouldn't be used as evidence to prove that someone isn't transgender.

Not really. The brain is...well, you. Your heart, blood, hands, feet, eyes, mouth, genitals, etc, can be replaced and you are still you. But your brain is you, and cannot be replaced.

I'm not saying there isn't potential for abuse or something, but understanding your brain is understanding you, and I bet it could be used to accurately determine a transgendered person. Not to say a person should be locked to the conclusion of such things, atleast not yet, but I do think it is a very possible and plausible method.

 

[Signa]

I'm reminded of my favorite line from the Big Lebowski

"You're not wrong, you're just an asshole"

 

[Maze1125]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

Well first off I'm not angry, nor was I angry, exasperated, yes, angry, not really... Your argument is one of one that we shouldn't hold people to any standards where they have to prove what they're saying, or at least that's what it sounds like to me... Although if I'm just misunderstanding and we've come to contention just on the sexual dimorphism of the brain... I still disagree that it's a factor we should avoid using, we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of other factors, but it's one that should be looked at. The more and better data we have on the subject, the better we can understand the subject after all.

I didn't say any of that.
What I said is that using brain structures to identify gender is exactly as problematic as using genitals to identify gender.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, but it does mean that it shouldn't be used as evidence to prove that someone isn't transgender.

Not really. The brain is...well, you. Your heart, blood, hands, feet, eyes, mouth, genitals, etc, can be replaced and you are still you. But your brain is you, and cannot be replaced.

I'm not saying there isn't potential for abuse or something, but understanding your brain is understanding you, and I bet it could be used to accurately determine a transgendered person. Not to say a person should be locked to the conclusion of such things, atleast not yet, but I do think it is a very possible and plausible method.

Your personality is more than just your brain. It is effected hugely by hormones throughout your body, which include from your genitals.

Currently gender identity correlates to a greater extent with genitals than it does with the identified brain structures and there is no reason to think that is going to change any time soon.

Why should someone who knows they are a female but has the "wrong" brain structure be considered less worthy of the title than someone who knows they are a female but has the "wrong" genitals? It's another form of discrimination, purely and simply.

 

[Saelune]

What you're arguing for is anti-scientific and anti-medicine, in the long run that will hurt more trans people than it could ever help.

Really?
What exactly is it that you think I'm arguing for?
Because you seem to be very angry about things I haven't said at all.

Well first off I'm not angry, nor was I angry, exasperated, yes, angry, not really... Your argument is one of one that we shouldn't hold people to any standards where they have to prove what they're saying, or at least that's what it sounds like to me... Although if I'm just misunderstanding and we've come to contention just on the sexual dimorphism of the brain... I still disagree that it's a factor we should avoid using, we shouldn't use it to the exclusion of other factors, but it's one that should be looked at. The more and better data we have on the subject, the better we can understand the subject after all.

I didn't say any of that.
What I said is that using brain structures to identify gender is exactly as problematic as using genitals to identify gender.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, but it does mean that it shouldn't be used as evidence to prove that someone isn't transgender.

Not really. The brain is...well, you. Your heart, blood, hands, feet, eyes, mouth, genitals, etc, can be replaced and you are still you. But your brain is you, and cannot be replaced.

I'm not saying there isn't potential for abuse or something, but understanding your brain is understanding you, and I bet it could be used to accurately determine a transgendered person. Not to say a person should be locked to the conclusion of such things, atleast not yet, but I do think it is a very possible and plausible method.

Your personality is more than just your brain. It is effected hugely by hormones throughout your body, which include from your genitals.

Currently gender identity correlates to a greater extent with genitals than it does with the identified brain structures and there is no reason to think that is going to change any time soon.

Why should someone who knows they are a female but has the "wrong" brain structure be considered less worthy of the title than someone who knows they are a female but has the "wrong" genitals? It's another form of discrimination, purely and simply.

As a trans person who was born male, then went on HRT, then stopped for reasons, I know firsthand the effects of both testosterone and estrogen on someone. And yes, it does greatly effect your brain, I wont contest that, but I don't think it changed who I was as a person. It changed my reactions and emotions, but not who the core of me was. When full of testosterone, Id react with anger to something that upsets me, while when full of estrogen, I still was upset, but I reacted differently (usually more prone to crying).

I'm not a brain doctor or scientist or whatever, (but I'm guessing neither are you, but I don't know) and there is a lot we probably cannot know, atleast currently, but Id imagine if you could take my brain and put it into different bodies, it would always be me. I would react differently to each body, but I think it has the same effect of putting any different people in the same situations. Id always pull towards identifying female or feminine, and would certainly have a more positive effect in a female body, than a male one, certainly a masculine one.

And even if I am wrong, I don't think its really another form of discrimination. Atleast not in any negative way. I don't think figuring out someone is autistic is discriminatory either. It just means you can now better deal with their situation than you could assuming nothing is wrong. Mental health is easier to deal with when you know the problem.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

Oh I bet he is an absolute delight to associate with I tell you what. (gags)

The guy sounds like a total scumbag or as he put it a total wacko. Giving discounts to people is perfectly legal. What is someone going to fight against senior and veteran discounts next? That's really what we need right now

So you'd obviously be fully behind "white night", where white people get to drink at 75% discount?

Discounts are perfectly legal after all.

 

[pookie101]

So everytime I bring up sexism towards women and get shut down, it turns out I should've been talking about how men are discriminated against for not saving money on drinks? That's where the real issue was? *Sigh*

Also this man is a ****. What's his next plan? Proving that white men get picked after black men when forming basketball teams by using blackface?

Oh. And the title shouldn't say "Used trangender law" it should say "Abuses transgender law." Because this man is a **** who's willing to abuse laws made to protect arguably the most persecuted minority in America to satisfy his misogynistic world view. Fuck him.

*clapping* i like you and totally agree with both what you said and sentiment

 

[Mr. Popplewick]

Oh I bet he is an absolute delight to associate with I tell you what. (gags)

The guy sounds like a total scumbag or as he put it a total wacko. Giving discounts to people is perfectly legal. What is someone going to fight against senior and veteran discounts next? That's really what we need right now

So you'd obviously be fully behind "white night", where white people get to drink at 75% discount?

Discounts are perfectly legal after all.

So you'd obviously be fully against "Senior Discouts" or "Children Free"?

lol

 

[Dizchu]

Why is it that whenever people like this try to point out the "injustices towards men", it's always the most trivial, irrelevant bullshit? "I can't get a discount at Ladies' Night", "Nice guys finish last", "Women have an easier time getting sexual partners".

This is coming from someone that does not believe that women have it tougher than men do, in the west at least. What I have found is that many of the more severe double-standards that men face are often excused and defended by... other men.

 

[The Lunatic]

Why is it that whenever people like this try to point out the "injustices towards men", it's always the most trivial, irrelevant bullshit? "I can't get a discount at Ladies' Night", "Nice guys finish last", "Women have an easier time getting sexual partners".

To be fair, most of the time people bring up "Injustices against woman" it's trivial irrelevant bullshit, or just straight up false.

Frankly, the whole thing is a bit of a farce on either side.

 

[Jux]

He probably isn't but.....

You know that person in high school who was very weird and nearly/fully homophobic, the one who kept calling everything "gay" and telling everyone how weirded out and possibly violent they would be if they got hit on by a homosexual? Then you see them 10 years later with their new partner and they are fully out. Not saying it is a definite but that level of behavior could be indicative of suppressed identity. He could just be a douchebag. Or both.

I'm going off the evidence presented without delving into armchair psychology. Even if this person is indeed trans and was just repressed for their whole life, it doesn't change the fact that this persons motivation for what they are doing is based on bullshit.

 

[Dizchu]

To be fair, most of the time people bring up "Injustices against woman" it's trivial irrelevant bullshit, or just straight up false.

Frankly, the whole thing is a bit of a farce on either side.

Perhaps, but at least things like reproductive rights and sexual assault are legitimate concerns. If this is supposed to be a trump card against feminism then I can't help but be disappointed.

 

[The Lunatic]

Perhaps, but at least things like reproductive rights and sexual assault are legitimate concerns. If this is supposed to be a trump card against feminism then I can't help but be disappointed.

There's legitimate concerns like domestic abuse, custody and suicide rate that men face too.


It's not a contest. People tend to just bring up inane crap rather than address the real issues.

Though, the crap does mostly seem to be brought up by MRAs and Feminists.

I guess they're just easy targets.

 

[Mr. Popplewick]

Why is it that whenever people like this try to point out the "injustices towards men", it's always the most trivial, irrelevant bullshit? "I can't get a discount at Ladies' Night", "Nice guys finish last", "Women have an easier time getting sexual partners".

This is coming from someone that does not believe that women have it tougher than men do, in the west at least. What I have found is that many of the more severe double-standards that men face are often excused and defended by... other men.

People complain about what they feel is hurting them personally in some way. That may or may not be a logical process, and it does tend to become more relatively trivial given the predominately 1st world membership of the conversation. There is after all, no "Starving African Child" argument in Africa. It's just, "The Argument."

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Hey, if he says he's a woman then he's a woman. I thought that was the whole point. If it doesn't matter what your DNA says, what your biology says you are, or what you have lived your life as for decades, if you say you're suddenly a woman, you must be treated as such and anyone who says differently is transphobic, right? Besides, who are any of you to judge? You should all check your privilege.

If he actually identified as a woman, I would consider him a woman. Instead, he claimed to identify as a woman for a piss poor excuse of a "social experiment," and actually identifies as a man. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Maze1125]

Oh I bet he is an absolute delight to associate with I tell you what. (gags)

The guy sounds like a total scumbag or as he put it a total wacko. Giving discounts to people is perfectly legal. What is someone going to fight against senior and veteran discounts next? That's really what we need right now

So you'd obviously be fully behind "white night", where white people get to drink at 75% discount?

Discounts are perfectly legal after all.

So you'd obviously be fully against "Senior Discouts" or "Children Free"?

lol

Those are very different things.
We all start off young and (hope to) grow old. Hence, even if we don't benefit from them right now doesn't mean we won't ever or haven't ever.

On the other hand, very few of us start of as one sex and later become the other. Or one race and become another.

Discounts based on age or veterancy are not comparable to discounts based upon sex or race.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snipped to here-
Thank you for your apology.

No need to thank me, I'm just owning my crap attitude there. Still you're welcome.

On our contentions about using the brain for a form of verification... I agree with Saelune. I'm trans too and don't find it to be discriminatory. It's one factor and for validity you need three factors, anyone who fails that isn't going to be less a shit because we eliminate a factor.

 

[Achelexus]

I like these topics because it brings the bigoted feminists out of their caves, even if he's just a crazy old guy or is talking about trivial things, some people can't seem to identify the simplest forms of discrimination. sigh

Really, getting cheap drinks at bars is a privilege?

It doesn't matter that a woman is four times more likely to be raped than a man, or that an entire wing of American politics wants to use them as little more than breeding stock, the real injustice is that some bars give women a discount. Feminism defeated, we can all go home now.

Do you realize that nothing you've said is true?