Poll: Would you date a transgendered person?
- Thread starter BloatedGuppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OK... Same question to you as everyone else.Batou667 said:
Define what it means to male or female.
Because you talk about science VS. social issues, but the actual scientific definitions of male and female aren't even clear, because if you apply them literally as is, you get a result completely in contradiction to the societal constructs of male & female we've actually created.
Your counter-example is not a very useful one either, considering that race has no real scientific basis to it either, and is filled with logical inconsistencies anyway.
(For instance, why is president Obama not considered white? - Ethnically speaking his mother is white, therefore he must be too. But then again, his father is African... So the only truly logically valid statement is actually that he is mixed race.)
But again, if you want to argue you can't change a person's sex, please explain to me what your definition of it is.
The scientific definitions of sex derive from the act of reproduction. Taken to it's logical extreme this implies any organism incapable of reproducing itself is sexless.
Other definitions include the cellular definition, which states that a female cell is one which has sufficient size and resources to reproduce itself, and a male cell is a smaller one adapted to insert it's genes into a larger cell.
Even here there is room for cells of intermediate characteristics, but leaving it with the two extremes of 'male' and 'female' cells, you inevitably have to note that the only 'male' cells that exist in the human body at any time are sperm cells.
So at a cellular level, maleness is almost non-existent.
But since those definitions don't support your argument, nor even the standard ideas about sex and gender we actually use on a day-to-day basis...
Please, do tell me what the proper definitions are that let you state with such certainty that a person's sex is immutable.
If it is, what determines it? What quality must a person possess to be male? (Or female?)
And just as an aside to your counter-point, Australian aborigines are 'black', but not 'african'. If you somehow increased the melanin content in your skin so that you were in fact dark brown, calling you 'black' would be as valid as calling anyone else with a similar skin tone 'black', since that's all it is; A descriptor based on a superficial trait.
You would not however be 'African', because the definition of being African depends on you or your (recent) ancestors being from somewhere on the African continent. (I say recent ancestors because genetic evidence points to the entire human species being from Africa, originally.)
The point is, the definition of a person's race, (which is a scientifically flaky concept, but let's not get into that), depends on where you or your ancestors are from, not what colour your skin is, or what kind of accent you speak with.
The definition of a person's sex however, does not to my knowledge depend on any such thing. It is at heart a functional description. Maybe you disagree, but if so, I expect you to explain why your definition is valid. (Though you could start just by giving me a definition at all.)
Gender is an even more nebulous concept, which really has no meaning whatsoever outside of a social context. Arguing you can't change your sex is I think flawed, but at least has some factual basis. Arguing you can't change your gender, is as near as I can tell, based on a flawed idea of what gender is.
Now, if I'm being unclear, consider the difference in meaning between saying you own a sports car, and saying you own a ferrari.
A Ferrari is a sportscar. But, the reverse is not necessarily true.
A sports car is defined by it's function. With enough effort and modifications, I could turn any car into a sports car, and be justified in calling it that, because definition doesn't depend on how something was made, only on what it is and does at that moment in time.
( I could for instance, also take a sports car and turn it into a monster truck.)
However, I cannot change anything which isn't already a Ferrari into one.
The thing about a functional definition is that it depends solely on the properties something currently has, not on how it got to be that way.
Contrast this to the Ferrari. No amount of effort is going to turn a Toyota into a Ferrari. I could create a sports car out of a cheap Toyota, but I couldn't create a Ferrari out of one.
Why not? Because the definition of a Ferrari isn't functional at all. Something isn't a Ferrari because it has a certain set of qualities to it... No, it's a Ferrari solely, and exclusively because it was built by the company called Ferrari.
Even a 100% accurate replica of a Ferrari, down to the smallest detail, still isn't a Ferrari. Because the definition of what a Ferrari is, excludes that possibility. (It has nothing to do with what's been made, but rather who made it. Did you know for instance that Lamborghini made tractors? If you saw one you'd probably not be expecting that, but you could hardly argue it isn't really a Lamborghini, even though it's not a sports car...)
All that aside, your argument depends on a person's sex being something akin to the second definition. (Eg, the one about Ferraris).
Yet the scientific evidence leans very heavily towards the first definition. (Eg, defined by it's function.)
In fact, were it not for the concept of sexual reproduction, the entire concept of male & female would be pointless.
Yet, the commonly used definitions certainly go well beyond basic concepts of reproduction.
But to do so is to inevitably invite a huge number of logical contradictions which no amount of wishful thinking will actually validate...
So... I ask again. What definitions are you actually using, when talking about male & female?
This is irrelevant - logic dictates that as long as this example exists, the argument that transsexuals will never be genetically identical to their chosen gender is flawed. That is all that was needed to be shown, that is all I did. It doesn't matter how rare they are.Knife said:
Masculinity and feminity are social constructs based on a spectrum - it is normally a sliding scale of how masculine to how feminine a person is. The idea that there is a genetic binary distinction has been proven to be false - even at the genetic level, mutations have shown that people have the XXY combination, plus, other conditions have shown that genes are the sole determining factor of sex. Just because you are XY or XX, it doesn't make you male or female. That process happens during growth based on hormones. Genes are a pattern, but there are so many genes in the human being that interact, that the sex chromosomes aren't the whole story. There are 23 sets of chromosome that all work together, and lots of genetic material that is switched on and off depending upon what other parts of the genetic material is triggered. The human DNA a computer program for an operating system, but as we all know, even the best written programs have glitches, and unlike most software, you can't take human DNA offline and tweak it a bit - those glitches run and run, and you just have to try and patch them up and hope the thing doesn't crash.Knife said:
This is where the bigoted thinking comes into play - because you have already decided that transsexuals cannot change their sex, you have already determined that it is dishonet. You have taken a fundamental principle as a given, but it isn't a given. This is known as "begging the question."Knife said:
In short, the whole debate comes down to the fact that the people who think this is dishonest don't accept that transsexuals can change their sex. They think transsexuals are lying to themselves and others. This contrasts directly with transsexuals who believe that they can change their sex, and therefore, that they are not lying. When asked their sex, they will reply honestly with their chosen gender. They may, or may not, mention that they have indeed changed sex.
When people are attracted to someone, they are attracted to the person's gender. It sounds stupid, but this has been proven. This is because most people are ignorant, and assume that gender and sex are identical. But, the cues of attraction are sociological, and these all relate to gender-related cues, rather the sex-related cues.
This is why there is the issue of people getting upset and feeling betrayed that the person they were with didn't turn out to be who they thought they were. It's because they would rather blame someone else, than blame themselves for the fact that that automatically assumed that gender and sex mean the same thing. Most people would rather blame someone else than admit to their own ignorance.
If you are aware than transgendered people exist, and that sex and gender might not be the same, then it won't take that much effort to actually start thinking in terms of gender and sex. Be open about it. As long as you are honest and respectful, few people will actually take offence. That's a lot better than being abusive just because you are too arrogant to admit that you don't know everything.
Not true. People date and have relationships for many different reasons. It is not just about sex. Sex is, however, a fairly high priority for most people, but there are also other needs which relationships also meet. These can be seen according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.Knife said:
Definitely, but for the most part, the question is a case of when, not if, this information is revealed. However, it ultimately depends upon when such information becomes relevant. The best relationships are based on honesty and trust, and these are often built over time with people getting to know each other first. If you are having a one-night stand, chances are you may never find out if you have slept with a transsexual or not.Knife said:
Actually, there is 1 transsexual in every 4,000 people. Just quite a few of them are happily living their lives in their chosen gender every day. The questions you need to ask are the ones that would bother you, and if you need to ask whether the woman you want to sleep with is born male or not or suffer serious distress, get it over with.Knife said:
Biased poll is Biased. For a start - there is no option to vote for the fact that people are transsexual/transgender, so I wouldn't be claiming majorities on the poll with any sense of conviction.Knife said:
You argue about substituting sex for gender being dishonest, when you don't even understand the basis of your argument, or the mentality behind it.
A brief history of Gender Dysphoria is that the reason that transsexuals change sex rather than gender, is because the ultimate condidtion is based on a mismatch between sex and gender identity. There are two potential solutions - change the sex to match the gender, or change the gender to match the sex. The easiest option is the one people go for - which is changing the sex. To change gender identity requires intensive psychotherapy, where as changing sex requires hormone therapy. This is the professional opinion of the clinical profession around the world on this condition and it's treatment. Treatments are improving all the time.
There is no dishonesty about it - the only thing going on is that you are so unwilling to accept that people's sex can change based on your ignorance and bigotry, that you would rather believe that people are lying and build up a whole world view of prejudice around this principle, than actually even try to deal with the idea of understanding the process and what is going on with transgendered people. All to preserve your own ego, and your default assumption that gender and sex is the same, and avoid a little extra work on your part.
Wrong. Just because you believe it is impossible, doesn't make it impossible.Knife said:
Maybe you are right. Gender is only a word that has meaning to transsexuals. Oh, and sociologists. Oh, and the medical profession. Oh, and those who are intelligent. Oh, and practically everyone else who is actually capable of reasonable thought that doesn't want to remain confined to an outmoded world view in order to preserve their own ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry.Knife said:
That's only because you have set yourself up to believe that sex cannot be changed. By believing you cannot change things, you disempower yourself and reduce your own agency, reinforcing the structures that bind you. For many transsexuals, the process of transitioning is a process of empowerment and understanding that restores their sense of agency and gives them the ability to function in society to function again.Knife said:
This is why it is so important for people to understand that it is not the vile hatred that is the danger, but the quiet ignorance of otherwise reasonable people, who quite often don't realise exactly what they are doing to people. They do not realise that they are disempowering people, by not accepting them as their chosen gender. People who think they are helping, but really are just getting in the way, by reinforcing the structures, the prejudices, and the issues, without even knowing that they are doing it.
You claim these are inescapable facts - but the fact is that these ARE escapable facts. That is the point. Look at the changes society has made in civil rights over the past century - every single one of those used to be an "inescapable fact" as well. If was once believed that women were less intelligent than women, and that their brains would overload if they tried any work - now we have remarkable female talents (all undermined by Sarah Palin, naturally). It was one considered that black people weren't just an ethnic minority, but an inferior species of human being, but the civil rights movement has put a lot of that to rest in the educated areas of the world.Knife said:
Those are just the mainstream social movements - everything about socio-politics comes from the simple understanding about the fact that you can change things, and figuring out how you can change them. While you feel you cannot change them, that things cannot be changed, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We are talking about everything from Hacktivism to the Occupy movement here.
It's all about whether or not you believe you can do it. If you don't think you can, you never will. There's a lot of people out there who will say you can't do things, because they don't want you to do things. Some people don't want people to do anything, because they have never done anything themselves.
Screw all that. It is a sickness in society. The perpetuation of misery. Everyone should believe that they can do whatever they want to do, and go forth and do it. Just try not to abuse that potential - there's quite a few people that just want to make other people miserable, and all they want to do is go forth and stomp on everybody else.
Unless the Y is rendered dormant. Current research into a genetic cause for trangender tendencies has led researchers to believe that it is not actually associated with the sex chromosomes at all. If it was, you would only have transsexuals of one type.Ledan said:
Probably should have mentioned that... my bad.
Genes are tricky - they switch the dominance of others like crazy.
Only if the transgender REALLY looked like a girl without any guyish features. Only then could I look past it otherwise I would be wierded out, but yea I think I could date one.
Oh, here we go again.Kendarik said:
Please define what you mean here. Because it just sounds like so much nonsense. Chromosomes are meaningless. Those are the 'blueprints' I was talking about in my example.
Just because your blueprints say you're supposed to be something, doesn't over-rule what you actually are.
Working sexual organs I'll grant you is a valid argument, seeing as a transsexual is inevitably infertile.
But I would hope you think very carefully about whether making working reproductive ability an actual part of the definition of male and female... Because that has some seriously nasty consequences.
(For one, if you are infertile for whatever reason, you are sexless, if you follow that definition?)
As to the sexual organs 'working', in any sense other than reproductive ability, how good is good enough?
Absolutes rarely make sense in biology. The natural variation between two people of the same sex is already huge.
... "If you cut them open they are still male" though, as a statement, means... What exactly?
Is there a meaningful difference between a 'male' liver and a 'female' one? How many parts of the body actually even have sex-based differences of any practical meaning?
What parts of such a person are 'male', and on what basis? If your sole argument is genetics, then you haven't got an argument at all. (Like I said. 'Blueprints' do not define what something is.)
Reproduction meanwhile, is theoretically possible... Medicine is getting into the territory of being able to create custom-grown organs.
But the surgical techiques in existence already produce partially accurate replacement organs in this regard.
They're not identical to the real thing, but the problem is, that even if they were, people would still come up with the same arguments.
That you argue changing a person's genes would be a necessary step just goes to show just how far beyond a meaningful, realistic definition of a person's sex we've already gotten. (It also suggests I'm speaking to someone that doesn't really know anything about genetics, or how sexual development and genetics relate.)
This problem will never go away because people keep moving the goalposts. If medical technology could change all those things you are implying, we'd still have people arguing it isn't real.
More to the point, if you want to be absolutely 100% accurate about things, with existing medical changes, your statement is still invalid.
You argue this, essentially:
Someone who is physically 70% identical to a woman, is actually a man.
Whereas, if you use your own reasoning, then the obvious conclusion would be, someone who is 70% female, and 30% male, is statistically speaking female, but assuming you set the requirements for being female higher. (Like 95% female or whatever), then the logical conclusion to take with someone like this is that they are neither male, nor female.
(not that they are male, when taken as a whole they have less in common with a man than they do with a woman.)
If that is truly what you are arguing then you must be able to identify some single, obvious trait that is 100% exclusive to men, or 100% exclusive to women, that over-rides any and all other traits which say otherwise.
(But in the end that still sound suspiciously like my blueprint analogy.)
I don't fit the main categories because I /have/ dated a MTF transgendered person. Granted, it was only 2 dates but I work with her and we talk at work. Great woman, always very nice.
Hey now. I wrote the poll, and everyone naturally has their biases I certainly wasn't consciously applying one to the questions available. Escapist polls allow for a very limited suite of replies.Da_Vane said:
I will happily agree however that there is nothing remotely scientific about this poll.
Oh, I see, you are now trying to claim that social sciences are not real science, are you? Would that be more of the "Your proof is not valid proof" arguments that are normally levelled by the ignorant when they don't want to accept the zounds of evidence put before them?Batou667 said:
By the way - I got a warning for insulting you. Pretty hypocritical given the amount of people who haven't got warnings, despite insulting and offending the numerous trans people in this flame-bait thread. Yeay for neutral moderation. Way to go there Escapist! Thanks for proving my point! I'd prove it again, but I am running out of warnings...
Apparently insults are not a good way of getting your point across, even if your point is about insults and insulting people. THAT makes sense. Now THAT'S thought policing. You don't even want to get me started on that.
Suffice it to say - I was warned for insulting you. I called you an arsehole. Is that an insult? Logic dictates that just because you are offended, it doesn't mean that I intended to offend you. This, I believe, is the nature of much of the arguments when you say about if it offends you - well, too bad. Guess what. That's exactly what I did - but I got a warning for it. So, how comes I got a warning, and you didn't? How comes arsehole is deemed offensive and insulting, but calling someone transgender and asserting they are male when they are female isn't deemed offensive and insulting?
I can claim the same argument as you (by the way, I checked, I have a warning to spare, so what the heck) - so by all logic, I shouldn't be getting a warning, and arsehole should be just another qualifier. Or, your logic is flawed.
I understand that you probably don't mean any disrespect - a lot of people don't. But I do think that unless it is put into terms that people can realise and relate to, these issues aren't going to progress. Believing that a MtF transsexual will always be a man is like someone always believing that you are an arsehole. It is that simple.
For a lot of transsexuals, the reason for transition can also have significant psychological connotations, often related to negative experiences with their natal sex. By refusing to let them change, you are tying them into their psychological trauma. Maybe you've never experienced psychological trauma to understand why people would do that - in which case, you are lucky, but it is wrong to try and keep them there just because you can't handle the idea of someone changing sex.
I don't know what you define as "scientific", but these are based on significant medical evidence and case studies, which cover mental health, human physiology, as well as a great deal of social science coverage on the topic, so the argument that there isn't enough scientific evidence on this issue is completely bogus.
You've got more chance arguing "creationism" as a sound scientific principle than arguing that there is a lack of scientific evidence about Gender Dysphoria.
Given a pair of animals in a species that reproduces through sexual means, the female is the one that gives birth to the young (or eggs) and the male is the one that doesn't.CrystalShadow said:
OK, so maybe that definition is a bit reliant on function - children are still male or female after all, even though they haven't reached the age where they can reproduce. In that case, we can look for indicators of sex in a person's physical features (such as their genitals) an also their chromosomes.
Because he lives in a white-majority country so his dark skin gives him "black" minority status. Had he been brought up in Nigeria, people would probably have referred to him as notably light-skinned.
For me it would depend. If they told me quickly I wouldn't actually have a problem, though if they waited I would feel like I was tricked.I don't expect them to walk around with a sign held up, but if I asked one out and it was pretty obvious it was a date I would like a heads up.
So, let me get this perfectly clear. You would be willing to date a Male to Female transsexual, and support them, but in your head, you would still consider them a man?!Kendarik said:
You do realise the very contradictory nature of that statement, right?
Firstly, the relationship would never last. You would be undermining it with every single thought and action you take.
You may think you are being tolerant, but you are really not. You would actually be hurting the person.
Your failure to accept them as a woman would mean it could never work, because you would need to understand and accept that as a consequence of that, should you engage in a relationship with a Male to Female transsexual, you would be engaging in a lesbian homosexual relationship with them.
By failing to accept them as a woman, you would perceive it as a straight relationship. They would perceive it as a lesbian relationship. People outside would see what is otherwise a massive disjunct - and someone is going to have to deal with the issues that come from the fact that their definition of the relationship is wrong.
I didn't claim you were 12. I am wondering if you are insecure - that has been my observation based on others.Kendarik said:
Feminism is not an insult - but feminists have attacked male to female transsexuals, considering them infiltrators from the patriarchy, and not true women. Academic papers have been written on this subject.
You are focusing just on physical looks. But, quite often, the feminity actually comes from actions and behaviours, which are a lot easier to act out and reinforce, and it is here in which quite a few transsexuals are naturally "more feminine." This can be assigned to trying harder - but then, it can also be attributed to the fact that sexual equality as meant that women don't have to act so feminine to be considered women. If you have a pair of tits, you can act as masculine as you want, but if people might mistake you for a man, then there is a greater need to act more feminine to compensate.Kendarik said:
Then again, I also know that not all women are stunners, and I have seen women that have looked worse than even the roughest transsexuals I have seen. So, I guess it all comes down to experience. If all you have seen are ugly transsexuals and pretty women, or pretty transsexuals and ugly women, you are bound to have different experiences. I am lucky enough to have seen pretty women and pretty transsexuals, ugly women and ugly transsexuals, so I don't judge. People are people.
No, my main style of argument is actually direct observation and logical reasoning based on them. You are the one that seems to have decided that this was a hateful assumption. What you don't know is that it's not an assumption if I can actually name the specific butch lesbians that I was thinking of when I made this comment. That would make this anecdotal evidence, with the names removed to protect the mentioned people. Nice try at attempting to undermine my credibility though - when you can't tackle the argument, tackle the person making the argument.Kendarik said:
You can't compare genetics to the floor plan of a building. They are two completely different things, it's like trying to compare and apple to the theory of relativity. The most important aspects of all life are Genes, without genes, there are no offspring, and therefore, no life. A more proper comparison would be; I take a piece of coal and put it under extreme pressure, and suddenly it's a diamond. it looks different, it has a different worth, but guess what? It's still a lump of carbon.CrystalShadow said:
Now if you actually read anything else I wrote on here, you would notice that I pointed out transgender is just a qualifier people use, it defines them for better or for worse, it is part of their history and who they are. Are they physically any less of the gender they have changed to? That is debatable, it really depends on whether you define a physical female as someone with a vagina, someone with a womb, or someone with ovaries and the ability to become pregnant? Any of these physical definitions a transgender would not be considered female, but with these definitions neither would someone who had a hysterectomy, so obviously that definition doesn't apply. Is a female anyone who fits the cultural norm, or ideas of a female? If that were true than any man who stays at home with the kids, or shows their emotional side would be female, so that definition doesn't fit. Is it someone with XX chromosomes, well that fits every female and excludes every male, so it is the only definition that works. Therefore the only definition that we can go by is genetic.
Does this make them any less of a person? no, it doesn't. It does however make the genetically male, and physically and socially transgender. Transgender people should be allowed to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms or what ever sex they have decided to become, and it is their choice, and they should be referred to by what ever pronoun they want to be referred by.
However, none of that changes the fact that they are still genetically the gender they were born as.
I ain't making cis a part of my vocabulary and I don't know a single person worth knowing who would. Their lingo is kinda dumb. I'm not using that shit.
What they are saying is that, from the post op photos they have seen, the newly reconstructed genitals, do not look natural, and that is what she might not be able to get past.Da_Vane said:
Now, see, here is where the logic breaks down.Batou667 said:
Your definition of male and female are more or less the most fundamental ones.
But the extension to it is indicative of all the associated problems.
Since you admit there are people classified as male or female despite not meeting the functional basis that underlies this, you run into the question of which secondary features qualify you as one sex or the other.
Children are a good example of this, because it's actually incredibly difficult to determine a child's sex without doing something generally considered invasive.
They have no secondary sexual characteristics to speak of, so unless you're seeing them naked you have very little to go on.
If your definition is based on the act of reproduction alone...
You end up with 3 groups. Reproductively male. Reproductively female, and 'other'.
If it's based on other criteria, what is the basis for making one feature more meaningful than another?
Why is an invisible feature that you cannot trivially check for such as genetics, more significant than all the secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics put together?
If a person has breasts, a feminine figure, and dresses and acts in a manner we've deemed consistent with being female, you're using rather twisted reasoning if you're going to argue they're actually male instead.
Similarly, a surgically constructed vagina is not identical to a natural one, but it is still closer to being a vagina than it is to being a penis.
Arguing it's actually a penis is another one of those weird twists of logic that depends on a definition of what a penis or vagina is that makes little sense.
That's my problem with this altogether. People either don't have an answer at all, or forward something which just has no internal consistency to it, or is based on totally arbitrary criteria.
(And if the criteria are arbitrary, I might as well say that person is actually a toaster for all the rational validity the statement has...)
Pinning the definition of someone's identity on something which is for all intents and purposes invisible, and intangible seems incredibly bizarre to me.
Making it dependent on a feature that some people lack in it's entirety is fair enough insofar as that feature is the only reason the concept has any meaning to begin with...
But if you do that you have to be willing to accept the logical consequences of such a definition. Which people really don't seem willing to do.
Instead we seem to end up with definitions that say "If you have these qualities you are X", and then someone comes along and says "I have most of those qualities", only to be told that the only qualities that actually matter are the ones they don't have.
But if that were the case, why does the definition even include these other qualities they do have to begin with?
Furthermore, how can it then be argued that they are in fact something else, when they lack most of the qualities that define a person as such?
It seems to me to be a case that nobody actually knows what the definition should be, but if you ask them to think about it, the only answer you get is "Not you."