What gumpf - tolerance and acceptance are one and the same.dsh said:I'm a little late to this party and I think Casual Shinji already said it best but the unfairness of Da Vane's straw man really irritated me and I feel that attacks like this are one of the primary stumbling blocks to having meaningful dialogue about topics like this. Compared to the attitudes of the general population, Kendarik's comment seems rather progressive to me - a great many people would be happy to deny legal rights to the members of the LGBT community - but gets attacked for what amounts to an alleged thought-crime (thinking transgenderism is a mental illness and preferring not to date a trans person, but supports giving trans people full rights - all discrimination is internal). Even when I skimmed that 'racial dating preferences' poll, there didn't seem to be half this vitriol when people admitted to preferring to date certain races. No one was up in arms to brand those people racists. Everyone has preferences and respecting (the right to have) those is arguably just as important as respecting the rights of people different from us, a point with which Kendrik agrees (again, see Casual Shinji).Casual Shinji said:There is a difference between tolerating and accepting.Da_Vane said:... That's like saying you have decided that they will NEVER be a human being in your mind. You don't have to be dating someone to make this decision - it is common courtesy.Kendarik said:I don't think I could ever look at them and REALLY see any post op as "their new gender". They will always be victims of a mental illness and medical misconduct to me. As such I will treat them with respect and I will be the first to support them in obtaining equal rights and good treatment, but they will never really be their new gender in my mind.
Tolerance is something you do out of common courtesy. Acceptance is personal act.
I'll tolerate anyone who wishes to change their sex, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the gender they've become.
EDIT: I was typing 'heads down' and didn't see Da Vane's last reply but I still think that it's persecuting someone for a thought crime. When we hear (usually older) people who say, 'I am/was/raised a racist but I support racial equality' it seems that they get praised for overcoming their internal biases and taking the moral high ground. Yet in this similar case we want to burn them at the stake for being so inconsiderate.
As for those saying that a trans person doesn't need to disclose their history, I thought that relationships are built on trust and respect, and judging from the responses here, transgenderism as a relationship criterion is obviously extremely important for a great many people here, who would view lack of disclosure as a very large breach of trust. Do trans people have an obligation to full disclosure? I'd say no. But I feel that they take full responsibility for whatever fallout occurs from failing to disclose this fact and have no right to feel that they've been betrayed. People need to remember that not everyone shares their ideals and opinions.
OT: As for me, I feel that it would depend on circumstances, but off the cuff, my initial preference would be 'no'. Call me old-fashioned but I would like to have and raise full biological children with my mate - I find the whole process fascinating. If science progressed to the point where this was possible with a post-op trans person then I'd take that into consideration, just like I'd reconsider if I met someone (trans or otherwise) who was so attractive to me that it would overwhelm this default desire to have children.
The problem of disclosure and trust is a big one, and within the trans community, it is a big issue, and one that comes at some point in any relationship. This is however, an aside to the fact, because we are talking about relationships, and when you are following relationship protocol, it means building up trust. If you are building up enough trust to sleep with someone in a relationship (as opposed to a one-night stand) then presumably you would have built up enough trust to be willing to disclose the past if it was relevant. Arguments about this issue are therefore moot and besides the point.
In terms of general acceptance, and we are talking at casual walking down the street and meeting in a bar level, or the use of public bathrooms level, is the level of acceptance being discussed here. Distinctions between tolerance but refusing to accept are semantical justifications which are irrelevent - they are basically trying to be able to keep the monicker of being considered tolerant, even though their actions are not actually tolerant. It's a special case plea as to why this case a lack of tolerance doesn't count, and that generally, such individuals are tolerant except when it comes to transgenered people. That's like claiming to be non-racist but then hating Americans. That still counts.
You can claim that it is a through crime as much as you like, but there is this fact to consider: Thoughts lead to actions. This topic is discussing thoughts, assuming that they would lead to actions. Everything expressed in this thread can be considered to be an expressed thought relating to a potential action in a given hypothetical situation, should the circumstances arise. This is the entire point of the discussion here.
It is not a strawman to argue about transphobia when people express that they would harm other people under this principle. Likewise, the thought that someone would never accept someone as their chosen gender, can likewise be equated to an appropriate action. If a transgendered individual is stopped from using the public bathroom of their chosen gender, would you support their right to use the bathroom or not? The inferred response is that everyone who has said that they would never accept them as their chosen gender would not do this. Those who have stated that they would support them would do this. What about those people who have stated both of the above? They cannot both support and not support the person in their right to use the bathroom. The two are mutually exclusive. It is not a strawman argument - it's highlighting the illogical response given by those that are pleading special cases to try and get two mutually exclusive cases.
The problem appears to stem from what seems to be a major misunderstanding of what is being asked. The very idea that transgenderism is a mental illness is questionable, but then homosexuality was a mental illness sixty years ago as well. It's outdated thinking, and people that think this way really need a little bit more education. The problem with thinking it is a mental illness is that even well meaning people often end up putting trans people in a "pity" zone for crazies, believing they are all delusional and irrational, when in fact, they are perfectly sane human beings. In fact, by claiming it is a mental illness, it is like deeming these people are less than human - by virtue of the fact that they are not fully rational or logical.
Acceptance of a person's gender identity and transgenderism is little to do with whether or not you will sleep with them. You still have to be attracted to them before that happens. being transgendered is, in this regard, of little more consequence than being blonde. Choosing not to sleep with trans people is like refusing to sleep with redheads. It's a matter of preference. It may sound demeaning to turn something so big into something so meaningless, but when it comes to sex and sexuality, if you are attracted to someone, and you want to sleep with someone, then you will take all these factors into account.
Everyone is inherently bisexual anyway - you can think what you like about your identity, but our psyche just isn't geared that way. A great deal of sex happens in our head, and our sexual preferences changes all the time, so sexual identities are meaningless in little more than a very general sense. The closest we really get is "do we like that person?" Everything else is irrelevent. It's only because of societal pressures that such ambivalence with sexual attitudes is largely unrealised, because there is such a drive to be heteronormative and conformist, or to rebel and be overtly homosexual, when just being a human person like we all are is what happens anyway.