Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Something Amyss]

I think that does answer my question. I really appreciate you taking the time to write all that up, and putting yourself out there, i really do, thank you. I think the general sense of dysphoria answers my question perfectly. I guess it's a bit odd to me, since i've never really had *that* much of a gender identity, i mean i identify as cis, but it's never struck me as a particularly meaningful part of my identity for me, it's entirely possible i'm just very odd in that respect, but it means it's sometimes a bit tough for me to grasp these things. I kinda feel bad for not having more to say, since you gave such a good response, but i don't really, so i guess i'll just say thanks again!

Hell, if I could help, I'm glad to have.

I know right? Just look at the 80's. Hair bands left and right, and they were "sexy masculine" gods of rock. Including Rob Halford. Who looks, in retrospect, like one of the "gayest" guys ever, but not only was considered a manly man of manliness, but also totally fooled decades worth of fans that he wasn't gay. Or well, fooled is a wrong term, implying an intentional deception, but even with his stage persona, nobody even considered he was gay until he declared it years later.

Somewhat related, Rob Halford actually said at one point in an interview that this puzzled him. It was basically a case of "how sis people see me and not know I was gay?" Given recent circumstances, I can relate.

But yeah, there are certain traits that seem to shift rather routinely. Appropriate length of hair for a man is definitely one of them (women, too, actually). And it's by no means a new phenomena, but people always seem to think it's set in stone.

Well, I wouldn't say "unbothered" by it? I mean it's never comfortable to be the target of ridicule and bullying, but it just confused me more than anything. I mean they would make these declarations about me, and I would think. "...but I really love vaginas...like a lot. Like taking up 75% of my mental runtime as a teenager." So I just personally decided they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about, and ignored them for the most part. As to them not kicking the shit out of me, that would be due to a few reasons. 1. I'm 6ft 4in tall, and 2. Back then, was in really good shape, and I am a black belt in Tong Soo Do (South Korean martial arts). So most of them weren't inclined to try and mess with me physically, because I quite literally towered over most of them. They would mock me from a distance, because I was a fairly easy going guy, but they never would really try and get in my face. Mostly because I could kick their head off before they got that close. xD In fact, I did a friendly sparring match with one of them at a friends house, with protective gear and all, and he said that he'd never fought anyone that went at them so fiercely. Which is funny, because I was the most passive, defensive fighter in my class. But compared to him, I was apparently Bruce Lee or something. xD

I imagine it would be especially rough for people who are that tied to concepts of masculinity to lose to someone who doesn't meet their standards for whatever reason. I mean, it shouldn't be a problem, but then, judging people's sexuality/gender/whatever based on their hobbies shouldn't, either.

What I meant by "unbothered" was more that it didn't particularly stop you. Like, I did gather they gave you shit and that kind of sucks. It's just cool that it didn't dominate you or anything. I'd been acutely aware of the "boy things/girl things" divide almost as far back as I can remember, and...I let people stop me. I'm not saying that I would totally be all girly if only they had left me alone, more that the few things I did enjoy that fall into "girly" stereotypes were things I tended to avoid or do in secret. At least, until the middle of high school, when I ran out of fucks to give.

snipperoony!

It's actually amazing how little thought people seem to put into why they're reacting as they do. Like the natural order has been upset by a little boy not knowing his place in the world. Thank god all those good people are around to clutch at pearls and steer the child to what boys actually want. Crisis averted. I mean, this is more or less related to gender norms/gender roles, etc.

Your particular take is an interesting one, though. XD Never got the "girls/boys are icky" thing, either.

If my parents only knew the torrid love affairs and orgies my action figures got up to as a kid! xD But yeah, it kind of surprises me, and in another way doesn't. I'm starting to see some of it indirectly now, with one of my god-daughters (even though I'm an atheist, but hey, the title sticks, and it amuses me xD). Her mother told me about how she wanted to do martial arts last year, but then suddenly lost interest. This bothered me, because I LOVED martial arts as a kid. It was in fact, the one physical sport that I could truly enjoy. The training and discipline were immense help to me as a kid, to deal with a lot of issues in my life. So I was all for helping her learn some self defense. Then her mom said that some of the kids in her school were making fun of her, saying she was "acting like a boy", so she stopped showing interest in it. Apparently she liked several boy things, like the Ninja Turtles, and karate. So, due to social pressures, she is showing less interest in those things. Which bothers me a lot, as well as her mom. We're trying to get her interested in martial arts again. Maybe I need to find some girl friendly martial arts shows to show her. Oooh! Like Avatar: the Last Airbender series. Yeah, *ponders, stroking chin like a villain* yesssss, excellent. Need to find some other examples of badass girl fighters I think, to show her that it's not just boys that can kick ass.

Oh jeeze, thanks for reminding me that the guy who wants me to be his best man also wants me to be the godfather of his kid. Id you think it's awkward being an atheist godfather, try it while trans. Eep.

Better finish this post before I start hyperventilating.

But yeah, that definitely blows, but it's not in any way surprising.

I was kind of wondering if maybe that trend was ending. The last martial art I took had quite a few women amongst the regular rosters, including three or four who had ranks in other martial arts already. Granted, we're talking mostly adult women, not young girls. The youngest in the class was 16 when I signed up.

The rest of what I was going to say starts to go less into gender identity (which is germane) and gender roles (which is already kind of iffy in terms of being on-topic, but I think this has mostly been related) and starts getting super off topic, so I'm just going to shoot you a PM in the morning. I mean, after I've gone to bed, because it's 5 AM here and my brain is fried. Hopefully, my back will let me sleep now.

 

[JimB]

Oh my mistake. I'm talking about the state. After all, if the majority of the populace thinks that a person with female productive organs is female, regardless of said person's self-definition, the state will treat the person accordingly in all relevant areas (law, healthcare, etc).

In that case, no, I will not adopt that standard because it's an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and because the state is incorrectly conflating sex and gender, defining "male" and "female" solely by physical characteristics (and arguably not even by the correct physical characteristics, since biological sex is determined by more than whether your crotch is an innie or an outie) rather than by social components which, in case you missed my point about it earlier, has been an accepted factor in gender in the field of social sciences for forty-something years.

For example, in the country I live in, there is a woman's charter and certain healthcare benefits and subsidiaries for bearing children. Naturally, a person with male reproductive organs that views itself as a female is not privy to these benefits.

Is a woman who's incapable of reproducing (a cancer survivor, for instance, or someone who's experienced menopause) also privy to those benefits? Either way, your government is creating problems for itself by using this incorrect standard to determine who is female.

Hell, I'd go as far to say and turn the tables. There isn't an obligation to not be cool with someone calling you something you're not.

That's not really turning the tables, though, because the arguments are different. You're arguing to tell people what their innermost personal feelings should be, and I'm arguing that I have no right to tell anyone, whether the offended or the unoffended, that the personal feelings they experience are wrong.

I think my standard is very reasonable. It minimizes damage to all parties involved.

I keep asking people this and getting no answers, but: Lictor Face, what damage is done to you by a transgendered person being mad when you disrespect their gender identity? And do you think that damage is greater than the damage done by your disrespect?

I think that's a lot more important than a set of pronouns.

That is a very easy and even glib position to hold when nothing about your identity puts you in conflict with the pronouns others choose to slap onto you without your consent.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well I really don't consider the desire to know the answers to questions to be a problem. I'd say that seeing it as a problem is the actual problem. Unfortunately such behavior is not restricted to religions nowadays.

Depends if you think it's okay to grill random strangers about their gender identity. Then it seems less like curiosity and more inconsiderate and egotistical. People do not exist to answer your questions.



Hey, in human interaction, both people are the respondents, person A responds to the response of Person B, and so on.[/quote]

( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respondent ) ... but sure. I'll remember how that random person questioning me in the club was merely answering the question of me simply being there. That totally seems reasonable.

Frankly, if someone is going to assume I'm a homophobe, a transphobe, or a racist, and make that accusation to my face in a verbally aggressive manner?

Where did I do this? I'll say I'm not interested. Primarily because I don't know who you are barring some random stranger evidently curious about only knowing my gender identity. We don't live in a world where curious people are necessarily safe people. Particularly if you're trans or genderqueer. But by all means, fall on your own sword.

Well, the Internet is a little more consequence-free than face-to-face interaction.

Which is why I have no problems telling you why I would tell a random stranger saying the exact same thing that; "I'm not interested." It ceases being a preemptive defensive measure if I told them what I was thinking and why I did it.

Expecting anything other than both parties to moderate their behavior only displays entitlement on the part of said unhindered party.

How much more moderate is; "I'm not interested"? How else can I convey it? If I assume that they're going to hurt me, then I'm not going to provoke additional attention by being coy, or making up a lie so the line; "Sorry, I'm here with a friend..." when there is no friend... the excuse isn't going to cut it.

I'd say the compromise is for everybody to try not to assume the worst of people they don't know.

No, the compromise isn't walking up to someone and interrogating them about their gender identity. If you actually make an effort to have some bond, you know ... don't act like a nosy stranger who interrogates me when I'm trying to have fun at a club, or supermarket, or in the workplace ... then I might actually feel like talking further. If there is no interest in that part, there is no compromise. If that's the only reason why you want to talk to someone, and it represents the only reason you're talking to someone ... then I have to wonder what the angle is.

The world isn't sunshine and lollipops. It requires a certain degree of sensible caution that I would expect anyone of displaying. I would think the same thing of some random person walking up to me and offering me a drink that I didn't see poured myself.

 

[Batou667]

Oh, I am dying to see you tie this back to your prior argument. Because I know why ert phrased things as he did, and he knows why he phrased things the way he did, and I'm pretty sure you know why he phrased things they way he did.

How deeply ominous.

What I said was completely consistent with my previous comment: I don't think self-identification is the be all and end all of this (or most other) issue. There has to be some kind of corresponding empirical reality being referred to.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

What I said was completely consistent with my previous comment: I don't think self-identification is the be all and end all of this (or most other) issue. There has to be some kind of corresponding empirical reality being referred to.

The previous argument you put foreword predicated on 2 fallacies and a false equivalence. Gender is not the same as race, or age and really people don't identify by race, if you identify people based on race you're being racist, even if it's a really minor way of doing it. People don't identify strictly by age either, that's something you have to deal with because it just happens. People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age. Then you make the false equivalence of saying being trans is like otherkin, it's not, and the referenced otherkin are basically a mythical group used as a strawman to invalidate trans folk.

Using "empirical reality" as an argument here is the fallacy of begging the question, because there is no way you check genitals, give a genetic test, and see an entire birth record before you gender someone. Gender might be linked to biological sex in many ways, but gender identity, gender expression, gender role, and gender stereotypes, the components of gender, are not set in stone to conform to biological sex phenotype. Using the fact that someone's gender identity is different from their biological sex isn't about "reality", it's just being cissexist, while invalidating and erasing the trans person's identity. The empirical reality is, by medical peer reviewed consensus, gender is separate from sex, linked, but still separate. This is because people break gender stereotypes all the time, they break gender presentation rules all the time, they break gender role rules all the time. More to the point there are people who have gender identities that don't match their birth sex, this is called gender dysphoria, people like this are called transgender. A trans woman(MtF) is still a woman in this case, a trans man(FtM) is still a man, at the very least socially.

 

[Batou667]

People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age.

What about this person? If he truly feels six years old, why shouldn't he be called six years old? "At the very least socially", to use your phrasing? Should we amend his birth certificate to "correct" his date of birth to 2009, if it makes him feel better?

Like you say, people can refuse to act the stereotypes of their demographics. That's fine. It's the reclassification I can't get my head around. "I feel I'm six" doesn't equal "I am six". So why does "I feel I'm a girl" equal "I am a girl"?

Then you make the false equivalence of saying being trans is like otherkin, it's not, and the referenced otherkin are basically a mythical group used as a strawman to invalidate trans folk.

Sorry you feel that way, but in my opinion there are direct parallels between transgenderism and other types of dysmorphia including anorexia, unwanted limb syndrome, and species dysmorphia. If you've ever stumbled across any species dysmorphia / otherkin communities, you'll note they use very similar reasoning to the trans community: it's what's in our hearts and souls that really matters, fuck the oppressors, my identity my choice, it's a matter of self-determination not consensus, and so on.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age.

What about this person? If he truly feels six years old, why shouldn't he be called six years old? "At the very least socially", to use your phrasing? Should we amend his birth certificate to "correct" his date of birth to 2009, if it makes him feel better?

Like you say, people can refuse to act the stereotypes of their demographics. That's fine. It's the reclassification I can't get my head around. "I feel I'm six" doesn't equal "I am six". So why does "I feel I'm a girl" equal "I am a girl"?

Well first of all, cute using a fringe case anecdote as evidence. The only time someone can truly identify as someone younger is if they have a true developmental disability, one that leaves them with a mind like a child. Still the anecdote does not represent the whole trans community. In this case it's someone going into the deep end of age-regression which is full time regression

To answer your question about reclassification: With trans folk, we don't get to pick our gender identity, we also go to extreme lengths to socially fit in as the gender we identify with. The big part is that who we really are is intrinsic parts of our identities, who we are on a mental, neurological level. You can take someone who likes age regression and put them in situations where they have to act their age, they can still function as adults. When it comes to people who claim to be "transracial", I've never seen a case that wasn't about cheating systems for underprivileged groups. Because neither of those two prior instances are about intrinsic identity. Trans folk, all we want to is to be able to function as ourselves, we also do what's necessary to correct our bodies just so we can function. Gender Dysphoria causes depression, anxiety, and basically makes it impossible to function, because we're trying to function as a member of the gender we are not. That's why it makes a difference where gender is concerned, because it's a deep intrinsic part of us as people.

Then you make the false equivalence of saying being trans is like otherkin, it's not, and the referenced otherkin are basically a mythical group used as a strawman to invalidate trans folk.

Sorry you feel that way, but in my opinion there are direct parallels between transgenderism and other types of dysmorphia including anorexia, unwanted limb syndrome, and species dysmorphia. If you've ever stumbled across any species dysmorphia / otherkin communities, you'll note they use very similar reasoning to the trans community: it's what's in our hearts and souls that really matters, fuck the oppressors, my identity my choice, it's a matter of self-determination not consensus, and so on.

Well your opinion really doesn't line up with the medical community here, so your opinion is irrelevant. Gender dysphoria and transgenderism aren't considered as mental disorders, because we can transition, which solves most issues with gender dysphoria and allows us to function. This is unlike body dysmorphia, where a person has to physically cripple themselves to mentally function correctly, that makes it a mental disorder. Anorexia and bulimia are both also mental disorders because people who suffer them put their health at extreme risk, by chasing an unrealistic self image where they all ways view themselves as fat. They'll even see themselves as fat if they have no body fat and are near death from starvation. They don't function. Trans folk on the other hand, we transition, then we function, and we don't expect special treatment, all we expect is to be allowed to be ourselves and live our lives. Part of that is predicated on not having our genders under a barrage of invasive questions at all times.

With otherkin and furries? I've interacted with that community, I have friends in that community, and I have never met a furry or otherkin person who demands to be treated as an animal. They also have no medical classification in terms of having any sort of condition. Every furry/otherkin person I've ever met functions as a human in their day to day life, while delving into their fantasies on their own time, like most people who have a hobby do. The only ones I've ever seen who demand to be treated like an animal in daily life are obvious internet trolls, who get their jollies by pissing off a community that's a little "oddball".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

What's confusing? Can you give me a concise definition that encompasses all the people who are generally considered women?

You turning a simple binary question about primary sexual traits which are present at birth, into an open question is definately confusing.

Like asking if it's day or night, and getting an A4 sized text in reply.

The cynic in me sees an attempt coming to shoehorn in SJW rhetoric...

Actually it's not a question of binary primary sex characteristics at birth, because there are intersex people who are born with both, incomplete, or ambiguous genitals at birth. Hell a further crack in your assertion is that there are people who are defined as men despite having been assigned female at birth, also people who are defined as women despite being assigned male at birth.

Since you bring up SJW rhetoric... I'm seeing an attempt to shoehorn in right wing rhetoric.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

What's confusing? Can you give me a concise definition that encompasses all the people who are generally considered women?

You turning a simple binary question about primary sexual traits which are present at birth, into an open question is definately confusing.

Like asking if it's day or night, and getting an A4 sized text in reply.

The cynic in me sees an attempt coming to shoehorn in SJW rhetoric...

The problem you are having is that you are conflating a simple binary question about primary sexual traits with an extremely complex question about personal identity. No matter how much you believe them to be the same or want them to be the same they are not. 50 years of peer reviewed research into gender has demonstrated this.

I'm sorry the world is not always a simple place that is simple to understand. My life would be a hell of a lot easier if it was.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I got detention for that. To this day I still don't know the answer to that question <_<, when it enters my mind it eats away at me. Were they a boy, a girl, neither, both, something else? It's not that specific kind of question that eats away at me, it's any unanswered question.

Sounds like a 'you' problem that other people don't need to worry about.

Well I really don't consider the desire to know the answers to questions to be a problem. I'd say that seeing it as a problem is the actual problem. Unfortunately such behavior is not restricted to religions nowadays.

I'm utterly unconvinced by the idea that trans people are expected to be the ones to be patient. I mean the situation can only be as a respondent. If you can't be bothered to actually spend any time showing you're some benign element not liable to beat the shit out of me because you might have caught "the gayz" or you're basically there to grind a personal axe, then I'm more likely to treat the same question with a preemptive 'not interested'.

Hey, in human interaction, both people are the respondents, person A responds to the response of Person B, and so on. Frankly, if someone is going to assume I'm a homophobe, a transphobe, or a racist, and make that accusation to my face in a verbally aggressive manner?

Well, the Internet is a little more consequence-free than face-to-face interaction.

But apparently trans people are the ones that should moderate their behaviour. Not simply expect people to treat them like people as opposed to a pile of flesh.

Expecting anything other than both parties to moderate their behavior only displays entitlement on the part of said unhindered party.

I'd say the compromise is for everybody to try not to assume the worst of people they don't know.

Hell, I will agree to that! Please, this is exactly what I want! I would really love it if people didn't assume the worst of me all the time. That would be really nice. It would be nice if they at least tried. Which they don't. That is, in fact, the entire point of the lgbt movement. People assume the worst of us because they think we are disgusting or unnatural or any other of a hundred excuses and then they use those assumptions to tear us down and discriminate against us.

I would really love it if politicians didn't keep on trying to insist I am a sexual predator out to rape children. That would be really nice. I would like to be able to feel safe using a bathroom without having to walk half a mile to the nearest unisex bathroom. Hell, it would be nice if I didn't feel the need to scout for these unisex bathrooms at any place I return to frequently. It would be nice if parents didn't decide their children can't play with my daughter. I would be thrilled if society in general would stop proscribing how I should act, where I can go, and what I should wear in order to avoid bothering "normal" people.

I could go on like this for pages. But lets get to the big one. Most of all it would be really nice if people didn't actively fight to keep basic human rights from me because I have the audacity to exist.

So sure, once you help us sort all that shit out I will be happy to answer your questions about my gender. I'll make that bargain.

But until then I am going to have to continue bending over backward to accommodate the transphobic whims of the world, do you think you could make the tiniest concession and not publicly interrogate me about my gender identity?

 

[1981]

People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age.

What about this person? If he truly feels six years old, why shouldn't he be called six years old? "At the very least socially", to use your phrasing? Should we amend his birth certificate to "correct" his date of birth to 2009, if it makes him feel better?

There are people who have no control over their mental age. My sister has the body of a 30-year-old and the mind of a four-year-old (according to neuropsychological tests). It can be confusing to people who aren't familiar with intellectual disabilities. They perceive her as an adult, so they cannot understand that she's not like them.

If you're thinking it's not a fair comparison, you're right. It's not. Just like comparing transgendered to otherkin or the mentally ill isn't doing anyone any favors.

 

[01189998819991197253]

People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age.

What about this person? If he truly feels six years old, why shouldn't he be called six years old? "At the very least socially", to use your phrasing? Should we amend his birth certificate to "correct" his date of birth to 2009, if it makes him feel better?

There are people who have no control over their mental age. My sister has the body of a 30-year-old and the mind of a four-year-old (according to neuropsychological tests). It can be confusing to people who aren't familiar with intellectual disabilities. They perceive her as an adult, so they cannot understand that she's not like them.

If you're thinking it's not a fair comparison, you're right. It's not. Just like comparing transgendered to otherkin or the mentally ill isn't doing anyone any favors.

Everyone suffers from a lack of precision and scientific rigor. The fact is that a real study of anything to do with women has traditionally gone by the wayside, to the extreme of only testing pharmaceutical and medical models on males. There is resistance to including women, and always has been. The result is that any study of gender beyond what it meant to be male, has just been historically neglected. That's increasingly not the case today, but you don't make up the difference overnight.

We're really very ignorant about the underlying issues we're all trying to discuss like settled issues here. When you throw in the art of psychology and the burgeoning science of neurology, there is a huge degree of global uncertainty in these matters.

The result is that people like me just say, "I'm uncertain, but my default setting is to treat people how they want to be treated, if it's not hurting anyone." Other people use that uncertainty to justify their bigotry. Still others, like "otherkin" use it cynically and obnoxiously draw attention to themselves at everyone else's expense. The fact is though, that there are always Borderline nuts whoring for any attention, always bigots trying to excuse themselves somehow, and most of the rest of us just want to be left alone and leave others alone.

Thing is, "I don't really care what you are, who you are, or what you do. I'll call you what you prefer, from a combination of Golden Rule and deep apathy to strangers." doesn't really fit on a T-Shirt. Nor does that vast majority feel the need to trumpet it from the rooftops very often.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

People can refuse to act the stereotypes of their age group, but that's not identifying as a different age.

What about this person? If he truly feels six years old, why shouldn't he be called six years old? "At the very least socially", to use your phrasing? Should we amend his birth certificate to "correct" his date of birth to 2009, if it makes him feel better?

There are people who have no control over their mental age. My sister has the body of a 30-year-old and the mind of a four-year-old (according to neuropsychological tests). It can be confusing to people who aren't familiar with intellectual disabilities. They perceive her as an adult, so they cannot understand that she's not like them.

If you're thinking it's not a fair comparison, you're right. It's not. Just like comparing transgendered to otherkin or the mentally ill isn't doing anyone any favors.

This, seriously if I could up vote posts I would for that one.

Also I didn't correct it before, neither did you @1981, but it's forgivable. Still @Batou667 referred to the person in the article as a male several times over, that person is a trans woman so, so in this case referring to her as a male is again patently wrong. It's a rejection of gender identity, thus inherently cissexist.

 

[Lictor Face]

In that case, no, I will not adopt that standard because it's an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and because the state is incorrectly conflating sex and gender, defining "male" and "female" solely by physical characteristics (and arguably not even by the correct physical characteristics, since biological sex is determined by more than whether your crotch is an innie or an outie) rather than by social components which, in case you missed my point about it earlier, has been an accepted factor in gender in the field of social sciences for forty-something years.

Oh I believe that it has been an accepted factor in social sciences for many whatsits. My country however just sees no point in elaborating on it because to them (them, not me) the needs of the majority of their citizens outweigh the minority. So for the sake of convenience, it is so. I guess they dont think they matter that much. Whether thats right or not isn't really my place to say. Now before you go on to say anything, this applies to all minorities. For example, Jews do not get their religious holidays compared to their Muslim, Christian, Hindu etc counterparts because there isn't enough of them to matter. However, if they comprised of say, 15% of the population (imaginary guesstimate) the government may consider it.

Likewise, if transgenders comprised of 20% of the population (imagine that eh?), then naturally the laws will have to be changed to reflect that as trasngenders are now a sizable percentage of the population.

Its not an emotional,social or even scientific thing if that's what you're misunderstanding. Its a practical thing. Until their demographic hits a certain threshold, their influences on the state (and thereby recognition by the state), are negligible and therefore not worth considering beyond basic human and citizenship rights.

Is a woman who's incapable of reproducing (a cancer survivor, for instance, or someone who's experienced menopause) also privy to those benefits? Either way, your government is creating problems for itself by using this incorrect standard to determine who is female.

I'd like you to google what a woman's charter is, its a law term by the way, so that might help. I'm no law major so I can't really give an explanation that isn't superficial. What I can tell you is that in the court of law. Women are favoured.

Well naturally someone who isn't able to produce children will not receive subsidiaries for child birth (why would you give educational and medical subsidies meant for a child to a childless woman. Madness!).

What sort of problems? I am curious, thus far women in my country have enjoyed being favored in issues such as custody, criminal allegations and rights. That's not too shabby given the state of most other modern societies. And even if there is one. You'll have to forgive me on this if I sound rude, discounting the preferences of a demographic that doesn't comprise of even 1% of the population will affect absolutely nothing in the country. Larger demographics have been largely disregarded or even ignored unless it concerns basic human rights or rights of citizenship. I'm not saying if this is right or not. But it has happened before, and almost certainly again.

I'm pretty sure this is the same for quite a few other countries not my own, but I digress eh?

That's not really turning the tables, though, because the arguments are different. You're arguing to tell people what their innermost personal feelings should be, and I'm arguing that I have no right to tell anyone, whether the offended or the unoffended, that the personal feelings they experience are wrong.

Oh you misunderstand. I'm not telling anyone what they're experiencing is wrong or not. That'll be silly, thats trying to convince a serial killer that murdering is wrong(bad analogy? Point is he probably already knows and does it anyway, or doesn't care enough to acknowledge it)

Then again. I think a lot of things. I also feel that people should be more relaxed when it comes to the religious beliefs of other people, that personal faith is great for a lot of things unless it becomes external and that every man should know some politics along with knowing how to play chess and ball. Some might disagree, others won't.

Actually scratch that, if you're telling me that I shouldn't (cannot?) tell people what they feel in a certain circumstance, then you're right. That doesn't discount the value or even validity of my statement however. In this situation I believe people should be less tightly strung, and maybe think a bit more of the social and personal impact of their intended course of action. If you want to tell people about your pro-nouns. By all means, do whatever. But if you're rude, indiscreet and snide, then be prepared to receive the repercussions then.

This isn't an issue that is limited to transgenders eh? It refers to anything. People whose names are pronounced incorrectly. Pet names. Wrong assumptions of religious beliefs. So on so forth. You wan't to stand up for those to? Sure bro.

Just keep in mind how you phrase it affects more than you know.

I keep asking people this and getting no answers, but: Lictor Face, what damage is done to you by a transgendered person being mad when you disrespect their gender identity? And do you think that damage is greater than the damage done by your disrespect?

Oh? I'll give you an answer then. Its not that hard after all.

There is no damage done. That is, if they do it in a respectful and proper manner that I'd expect from any other member of society when defending their beliefs. If not, then there is almost certainly damage done, probably to my perception of that person and so on. As any other rude person will suffer, transgender or not.

As for your last sentence, I don't know the answer for that unfortunately, apologies. I don't believe that trasngender people are any more delicate or in need of special handling than any other mentally sound, perfectly healthy member of society (do keep in mind that when I mean mentally sound, I refer to it in a medical and clinical context. As in, a person free of depression , down-syndrome or bi-polar disorder is mentally sound. Mental stress is suffered by everyone so I don't take that into consideration).

I don't know about you, but I treat everyone equally as much as I can. Transgender. Homosexual. Christian. Muslim. Jew. Whatever. That is. Initially at least.

If you do something that I consider as being socially unacceptable or that I feel is inappropriate, my opinion and therefore treatment of you will change. Whether the person is transgender or not hardly rocks the boat. Another label in the same bucket of labels. Same o same o ya?

You're making this an issue specific to transgenders when it really is not. Manners and social decorum are universal. You change the topic at hand to

(Religious recognition offence: A cross is not necessarily a religious symbol, and I would like everyone to not automatically assume I am Christian nor treat me as one)

and I'd still respond the same way.

As long as the person who is reasoning why he would like to be treated (whether it be by pronoun or not having his or her religion assumed) is polite and socially aware, I have no problems with it.It really is not that hard is it?

That is a very easy and even glib position to hold when nothing about your identity puts you in conflict with the pronouns others choose to slap onto you without your consent.

Well, if I one day wake up to find myself, as you say, a transgender. I probably won't change my opinion either as it is a facet of my character. Being transgender doesn't change that. Opinion, characteristics and behavior are shaped by education, media and personal experiences.

Perhaps it is true that growing up as a transgender will affect one or all of those three fields. However, a transgender who has been taught the importance of relationships, friends or even good manners by its parents probably will not start a fight with another person over something as banal as pronouns.

Being referred to with the wrong pronoun is not on the same level of being beaten up for being a 'dirty tranny' (no offence intended)

 

[Something Amyss]

They have female reproductive organs. Or at least that's how it is in the country that I live in. We're straight forward like that.

Do they need a full, functional set?

What I said was completely consistent with my previous comment: I don't think self-identification is the be all and end all of this (or most other) issue. There has to be some kind of corresponding empirical reality being referred to.

Your prior statement relied on false equivalence. Are you saying you feel false equivalence is indicative of "empirical reality?"

You turning a simple binary question about primary sexual traits which are present at birth, into an open question is definately confusing.

Except literally none of that's true. Hell, you're already at odds with the other post who said it was "simple."

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem you are having is that you are conflating a simple binary question about primary sexual traits with an extremely complex question about personal identity.

No, my question went to the biological definition of woman, as that was to the point of the argument Lictor had made. What I got, instead, was a legal definition that may or may not be true and something something SJWs. But let's not go after someone for something they didn't say.

...which still doesn't address biological sex not being a simple binary, but that's already been brought up.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In that case, no, I will not adopt that standard because it's an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and because the state is incorrectly conflating sex and gender, defining "male" and "female" solely by physical characteristics (and arguably not even by the correct physical characteristics, since biological sex is determined by more than whether your crotch is an innie or an outie) rather than by social components which, in case you missed my point about it earlier, has been an accepted factor in gender in the field of social sciences for forty-something years.

Oh I believe that it has been an accepted factor in social sciences for many whatsits. My country however just sees no point in elaborating on it because to them (them, not me) the needs of the majority of their citizens outweigh the minority. So for the sake of convenience, it is so. I guess they dont think they matter that much. Whether thats right or not isn't really my place to say. Now before you go on to say anything, this applies to all minorities. For example, Jews do not get their religious holidays compared to their Muslim, Christian, Hindu etc counterparts because there isn't enough of them to matter. However, if they comprised of say, 15% of the population (imaginary guesstimate) the government may consider it.

Likewise, if transgenders comprised of 20% of the population (imagine that eh?), then naturally the laws will have to be changed to reflect that as trasngenders are now a sizable percentage of the population.

Its not an emotional,social or even scientific thing if that's what you're misunderstanding. Its a practical thing. Until their demographic hits a certain threshold, their influences on the state (and thereby recognition by the state), are negligible and therefore not worth considering beyond basic human and citizenship rights.

That's the problem, trans folk will never be a majority. So I have a question, does your country have gay rights, like same-sex marriage? Because if not then they're not portecting the basic human rights of citizens in the minority. Trans folk don't have official holidays. That doesn't mean we should have our rights and our identities put aside and be marginalized. If you don't specifically protect marginalized minority groups, they get discriminated against, period.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Trans folk don't have official holidays.

Whoah, wait, they don't? Like, you mean official in the sense that it's a Federal Holiday, right? I could have sworn we had this thing at my college every year where there was a memorial day for all the Trans People who committed suicide.

We would light candles and put them along the esplanade, and read off their names over the broadcast system. Well, that is, the ones we got permission for.

EDIT: What day would be a good day for a Trans Holiday?

One of the ones is for murder victims which is Transgender Day of Remembrance, there are several such days, but those really, really aren't holidays for us. Those of us who participate in public events basically out ourselves and open ourselves up to all kinds of bullshit, I heard of a trans woman at one who was beaten as soon as the event ended, almost to death. Besides that, there is no celebration on such days, it's not like Veterans Day or Memorial Day where people celebrate in honor of veterans. The memorials we do are really somber sorrow filled days, especially because it seems like things aren't getting any better, in fact they look to be getting worse. It's said there are fewer crimes against trans folk recently, but the numbers are higher because people are reporting them, and the police are starting to take them seriously. Still because of how hard it is to get a good read on statistics in the trans community, on anything, it's impossible to say if it's true we're being less victimized, or not. There also awareness campaigns, but those make a lot of trans folk feel exposed and naked to the open bigotry.

I don't particular think we specifically need a holiday, we're not a major religion, or anything. Just a minority in the populace that is having a hard time getting our basic human rights recognized. If a major trans activist was shot during a speech, that might do something in that vein though.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yeah, see here is what I was talking about. You may not exist to answer my questions, but as a human being I exist to ask them. Hostility is one way to beget submission, but there's always a chance things will escalate.

Not a fan of passive aggressive death threats like "die on your own sword", "hill you want to die on", or "have fun in hell", by the way.

No, you provably do not exist to ask questions. Existence is self-evident and we are doomed to be free. Secondly, it's not hostility. Thirdly, 'fall on one's sword' is not a death threat. It's a saying. It represents resigning oneself to defeat. Me ignoring you or telling you to go away is not some profound infliction upon your existence. It's not hiostility to say; "Look, sorry. Whatever it is you're selling I'm not really interested." I am allowed to assume the worst, because the worst can happen when people just approach you out of the blue and begin asking questions that have lead to harmful consequences.

You are putting me in a place where I am forced to respond when there is good reason that if I acquiesce can lead to harm. I am then allowed to weigh my options and consider the best course of action. I do not exist to answer your questions ... and to pretend that harm mitigation represents 'hostility' is grossly unfair. You are then telling me; "You have to answer, without fail. Or be seen as hostile or the wrongful party." You're transforming this where someone is considered morally ambiguous at best, simply by avoiding to answer a question because ..... some random person on the street demands of me time and information I'm not willing to share?

What medieval reasoning is that? Pretending that harm evasion is 'hostility' is ignoring increased harm being levelled upon trans people. It's also shifting blame for your act of demanding another's time. If you think that is an inappropriate, or 'hostile' response to someone who just approaches you randomly on some crowded city street then perhaps it's not a case of being hostile but you being sheltered and assuming trans people are also. You'll forgive me if I then tell you that random strangers accosting me out of the blue hasn't lead to favourable outcomes. Why then I am the wrongful party by trying to avoid said situatiuons?

Should I unnecessarily suffer so as to accept the world's questions? If you think so, then the defect lies with you. I am owned by no one ... and I would posit any who should think so as the hostile party.

 

[Politrukk]

And it's factually incorrect. I don't support weakening the word "insane" when there are tons of other non-diagnostic terms a person can use instead.

I think you are confusing clinically insane with the normal usage of the word insane.


Edit(not a reply to you JimB but to the recent replies in the thread):

People think transgenders should have a holiday?

Why?

I've always found gay-pride odd (because it singles you out for being gay and deals with some contrived propoganda instead of everyone just getting along).

The mere fact that you'd want a holiday specifically for transpeople sort of does adress the entire special-snowflake comment people are making now doesn't it?

Not that I am of the opinion that the deaths of activists or people in general should not be remembered, but an actual holiday?