Maze1125 said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
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.
Maze1125 said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
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.
Maze1125 said:
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.
jurnag12 said:
sageoftruth said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
sageoftruth said:
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.