KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Abomination said:
The implication only exists if you have a confirmation bias. They have not explicitly said they consider trans people to be the equivalent of social junkies. To infer that speaks more of insecurities than considering what the individual is saying under good faith.
It's hard to establish good faith when the person in question is so hostile to transgenderism. I absolutely hate to use this term, but in this case it seems to fit. The poster in question is trans-phobic. (Grampy-bone I mean)
I would disagree. They have shown no signs towards hating trans people, rather they dislike the affliction. It is a mental disorder, after all, and causes pain and discomfort. A person who is trans is not a bad person, but trans itself is a bad ailment.
It would be nice if it was that simple. A purely rational approach assumes a purely rational people. Humans are not purely rational. We're panicky, group driven, irrational animals. Also gender does matter, even as a social construct. With out such a system how could humans identify who to reproduce with. With out this system, where does that leave the young? Someone needs to take care of them, and someone needs to birth the,/. As it happens females are best equipped for the job.
First, a rational discussion occurs between individuals. In this case between the parent and the child. It's possible to have a rational discussion while discussing emotional aspects of others. Second, gender takes no place in the act of reproduction. One's identity doesn't change their sex. Gender is not required for reproduction. Finally, men, women, straight, bi, trans, cis - all are capable of raising children. None are better or worse unless society becomes involved. The reason why women became the caregivers is because men were more disposable and also more prone to an early death. The gender divide is breaking down at a faster and faster rate. I hope by doing so the concept of trans can also be abolished in the process.
There are pretty solid basis for gender identity based both on experiments with monkeys and apes, and studies that track those who got different hormonal charges while in the womb. It's not entirely clear, but it makes a compelling case.
A compelling case but I imagine those trials haven't seen a male-sex monkey that shows signs of transgenderism being placed as the only male in a female enclosure yet. There are so many factors contributing to what makes a trans a trans that hormonal changes aren't enough to provide proof. I mean, how does a monkey even know what their gender is? How does a monkey even know what gender is?
Also driving a child towards no gender presents several problems: If a child identifies as the opposite gender, taking away both leaves them with no grounding, it also robs them of social connections, and social skills.
No it doesn't. The philosophy that gender is a purely social construct IS the grounding. It's a completely rational perspective on human relations. You don't have to have a gender to have social connections.
Having no gender means having no bearing with which to measure themselves to others. That's harmful, it robs people of their competitive nature. Without that nature we'd still be fishing ants out of ant hills with sticks.
Not at all. It robs nobody of anything. Having a gender is placing oneself in a box of conformity. One can still be sexually active while not possessing a gender. Gender has nothing to do with sexuality and so one who doesn't identify as male could still be of the male sex, for example.
Also for example: You have a son, a male child, then you find out he identifies as female. You steer them towards "no gender." That alienates their identity as a female internally, because you're telling them not to identify. An inability to identify with others robs said child of interpersonal skills. You can't expect the world to bend for an individual child, or even many children who feel similar. This is because the majority disagrees with the way these people see the world. If someone doesn't know the "rules" they can't "play."
Not identifying as female doesn't mean they can't identify with others. One does not need to belong to a specific demographic to belong to a group. Take note, when removing the concept of gender you do not remove the aspect of sex. They would still identify as a male, but they wouldn't BE male. And yes, there is a distinction there.
If you strip a child of either gender of their gender identity, how can they relate to some who has a gender identity?
Easily, they're a person who feels strongly about a binary sex which ultimately means nothing. I imagine they'd identify with them the same way as an atheist identifies with a Christian.
Not only are you harming them in the short term, but the long term too. Because you've stripped them of an ability to relate themselves to others.
Again, I don't need someone to be male for me to relate to them. I can relate to women just as easily. I can relate to trans people just as easily. I UNDERSTAND them, in fact - it's not difficult.
Identity is such a flawed and egotistical concept, it's as though people are incapable of associating with others who do not fall into specific groups. We're a curious species, we're a sentient species. While impulse does play a part in our lives we are capable of rising above it. The fact we are capable of actually having this type of conversation is proof of that.
Race, gender, nationality, culture, religion - these have no substance. They serve only to stereotype and divide. The further an individual can disassociate themselves with these the more unique they become. Their "identity" becomes even stronger. Less about "we" and more about "me".