Transgender Thread.

[Famine]

It's only sexist if the social (or other) attributes you assign to a sex or gender are negative or disparaging.

I don't think that's true at all. I would say that positive attributes are discriminatory too. The idea that women are good at ironing or multitasking is sexist. The idea that Asians are good at maths is racist.

It's not just because by making these stereotypes you're automatically assigning attributes to a section of society, but also because if a member of that section of society doesn't meet those attributes, they're automatically thought of as not really a representative member of it. Regard:

You could observe that many girls like to play with dolls, that isn't sexist, it's a fact.

This observation creates a stereotype - that it's typically girls who enjoy playing with dolls. This stereotype is not intrinsically sexist, but it creates a sexist attribute: that it is feminine to enjoy playing with dolls. This casts boys who like to play with dolls as feminine, and girls who don't as masculine.

Feeling that you're most comfortable in women's clothes isn't sexist.

Determining that they are women's clothes is. Why can't they just be clothes?

 

[dylansan]

@Famine

I guess the question becomes, why use gender-based pronouns at all? I mean, expect for medical circumstances, nobody uses "he" or "she" to convey a person's genetics.

The way I see it, there's two ways around this problem. The first, as you and @Danoff seem to suggest, is to do away with sexism by refusing to attribute any differences between people, except genetic differences, to gender, and allow anyone to wear whatever clothes they like, or act the way they like, or even have whatever genitalia they like.

The other option, and I think this is sort of how society is progressing anyway, is to acknowledge typical differences between the genders, and accept that men can be feminine and women can be masculine, and then refuse to judge or make assumptions based on that information. For example, I could say that a man wearing lipstick is somewhat feminine, but it doesn't mean I have an expectation that women should wear lipstick, or that men shouldn't, only that women typically do more than men. Refusing to see differences as positive or negative, or even as meaningful at all—who cares what makeup or clothes you wear—means acceptance and lack of judgement is still very possible.

As far as transgender people, the sticking point seems to be with which pronouns to use. You could use pronouns to identify genetics only, and avoid stereotyping any outward characteristics as either male or female. But again, at that point what good are separate gender pronouns? No one seems to care what chromosomes I have, so a single, genderless set of pronouns would suit that approach much better. The alternative is to just call people what they want to be called and accept that it doesn't really matter if someone is a he or she in terms of what they can do in society, unless it's something that specifically depends on genetics.

I won't even argue that one way is better than another. It sounds like I'm arguing against the first option but I'd actually prefer that if there seemed to be any way for that to happen. The second option, as long as you're very self-critical about what you judge people about and the assumptions you make based on irrelevant observations, could possibly be functionally identical. And I think, considering that the differences between typical male and female appearance, clothes, and in some ways behavior are definitely real, even if they're not important, the second option may be more honest, as well.

One follow up question. What pronoun do you use for someone with one X and two Y chromosomes? What about three X chromosomes?

 

[Ialyrn]

Why "trans", or "transgender" for that matter, at all then? Why should each person not just call themselves by what they identify as, and be done with it? Would save on some of the stigma I'd have thought.

I would love nothing more than to do that to be quite honest, but at the same time there is so much hate towards all of us, that there needs to be people such as myself who are willing to be open about everything; so that we can help those in need of it. I would much rather out myself as transgender, because I can offer up advice to someone going through the same, give them information that they will need to aid them in accessing the help required to progress through the system safely. To try to discourage the practices of self medicating HRT (which is something that happens far too much), as the adverse effects can be disastrous. Case and point, I have only ever had NHS prescriptions for HRT (oestrogen 4mg daily and a 3 monthly Zolodex sub-dermal implant); and which is closely monitored with a full blood workup to check liver and kidney functions (as well as other things), and I have suffered adverse effects in the form of a DVT and Pulmonary Embolism (blood clot in the lung which breached and resulted in me coughing up blood). Which although are rare complications of HRT, can and do happen due to the nature of the oestrogen therepy, and are very deadly if not treated in time. As it stands, I need to now take a blood thinner indefinitely; in the hopes that the PE will be absorbed into the body, and so I do not end up with a case of spontaneous dead.

So if my experiences as a transgender individual can help guide someone also going through the same, then I am more than happy to out myself as being transgender.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

When you meet someone new, do you ask them what pair of chromosomes they have before deciding which pronouns to use for them?

That'd be the exact opposite of everything I've posted in this thread - which is that I don't care what pronoun gets used for anyone, including myself, as they have very little real meaning. I've also directly stated in this thread that I don't care what chromosomes I have, let alone anyone else.

@Danoff You are expecting people to quantify why a particular feeling exists to them, and as to what causes that feeling or how it feels to them. But there is no answer to a question like that. I can no less tell you why I feel that my gender identity is female, than I can explain to you what love feels like; because there are literally no words to explain it other than just 'love'.

Love is an irrational attachment to another person or thing. When you love someone or something you care about its well being, and you protect it from harm as best you know how. Can you tell when someone around you is in love? Can you look at a friend interacting with their spouse or SO and tell that they're in love? I can, most of the time. I think a lot of people can recognize love in others. Tell me exactly how that is possible unless there is an explanation for what it means to be in love? If you can't give a reason for why you think you're in love, you just feel it, nobody around you should be able to tell. If they can tell, then there is a reason to think you're in love.

The same is true for feelings of gender. I'm not asking you to justify your gender, or to explain what's triggering that feeling, I'm asking you to assess what makes you think you're having that particular feeling. If you tell me you're in love, and I ask you why you think you're in love, you don't respond by saying "I don't have to justify myself to you" or "I don't know why I fell in love", both of those miss the question. The question is what makes you think you're currently having a feeling you can describe as "love". Love is a word in the English language, it has a meaning, you have lined that meaning up with a certain emotion that you're having, why did you use THAT word to describe THAT feeling.

Why would you use the word "man" to describe your feelings about your gender. Why would you use the word "woman". These words have a meaning, and you have lined that meaning up with an emotion you're having. Unfortunately, the "meaning" behind those words is a social construct rooted in what is "normal" or "common". This is a poor definition, because there is such a huge variance in what it means to feel like a "woman" or "man". So much so, that they don't have any real meaning. To stick to the notion that one or the other is the correct word to choose to describe your feelings about your gender is to adhere to a stereotype that is either arbitrary, or sexist, as I have previously explained.

It just is, and that is all there is too it. You certainly can not apply "logic" to it, because logic doesn't fit with feelings at all. Feelings, including love, anger, sorrow, and loss are all as irrational as each other. And each of those feelings can be different to each person. Whatever it is that creates the feeling of happiness within you, will not be the same thing that creates that same feeling within me. I just know when something makes me so, and in the process my lips tend to involuntarily move to form a smile.

And hopefully after I wrote what I did above you see why this misses the question. I'm not asking why you're having the feeling, I'm asking you why you're labeling that feeling the way you label it.

Whether this is intentional or not, you are coming across a bit 'absolute' in all of this. And you appear to be coming off as 'if you can not explain why you feel this way without been a sexist bigot in the process, then I will not except that you feel that way'. But to be quite frank, You (and a lesser extent @LeMansAid), have zero right to tell people how they should feel. Because at the end of the day, it has sweet FA to do with you.

...and hopefully after what I wrote above, you see why I am not telling anyone how they should feel. To take it a step further, I actually am not even telling people not to be sexist, as previously stated I'd be the first person on this forum to defend everyone's right to be sexist.

What I can tell you about me, is that I do not feel as though my gender identity is female because of arbitrary things such as what clothing appeals to me (I wear androgynous styles anyway, have done my entire life), or as to what toys I played with when I was younger, or even physical attributes. Those sort of things have nothing to do with it, they are just things that I either do/don't like or have developed before/after HRT, but they do not define who I am or my gender identity. My gender identity has just always been 'there', and the only way I can consciously describe it is as, is female. It is the only word that I can assign to it, but there are no words that I can find to explain why that is.

If you have no reason to choose the word "female" over the word "male", why bother? Why not stick with male? or female? whichever is easiest? Why "change"? If you care which one is applied, and I think you do, you must have a reason to think the other is the correct word to use. Whatever attributes you're forcing onto "female" to think it's the right word, are social constructs that don't need to exist.

The word you are looking for is not "transgendered", but "transgender".

This is my real beef with everyone today, always looking for an excuse to correct. Why do you care? Honestly, was anyone confused? Are you just trying to help me out or are you trying to score a point in an imaginary contest?

Actually it is not, you should go and read through Danoff's posts in this thread again, right back to page one. Danoff's argument has always been that if you are chromosomally male or female, than you should be treated and addressed as that via pronouns; as it is sexist and bigoted to be addressed (or insist on being so) with the opposite pronouns to the biological sex that you are.

It's impressive to me that you can go right back to page one and read through all of my comments and get that out of them. I said that I find it disrespect to not call someone by their chosen pronoun in this thread. I said that I don't care what chromosomes anyone has, nor myself... the last thing I'd advocate is that we treat someone based on some criteria I don't care about. How you could miss my point so completely is remarkable, but I'll assume that it's because you're having trouble not making me into a strawman for other, more common, viewpoints that you've had to deal with in your life.

It is sexist/bigoted to walk around saying that you must be called "woman" because you think you understand what that word means and what the word "man" means and that "man" does not apply. Tell me what it means to be a woman and a man (which you must be able to do to claim that you know these terms) and I'll show you the sexist/bigoted or simply arbitrary nature of your position.

As a non cis passing trans woman there should be no need to explain my gender identity. There is no one way to explain it.

You have two terms you can choose from, "man" and "woman". Tell me why you picked the one you did. Don't tell me why you feel a certain way about yourself, tell me why one of those terms is more appropriate to how you feel than the other.

Ah, but here is the thing. Continuing to treat me as male and use male pronouns is considered highly disrespectful, and considered as 'transphobic' in the eyes of the law where I live (United Kingdom). And even though that is an awful word, it does not make it any less valid. The real fact of the matter here, is that this is exactly what @Danoff is being, as transphobia is described as a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings towards transsexuality, transsexuals, and transgender individuals. His views and beliefs on the matter have actually been pretty darn antagonistic. It is no different to turning around to a person who is gay and using a derogatory slur towards them for being so, or adhering to a belief that they choose to be gay while in a gay persons presence. And the same with with using a derogatory word towards a person of a different ethnicity to yourself.

...and the straw man is complete.

First, I don't continue to treat anyone any particular way. I try not to treat any man or woman in a particular way because of their gender, including transgender people (it feels like it needs an "ed" on the end for some reason, like that's improper grammar). Please quote me having an antagonistic attitude toward transexuality, transexuals, or transgender individuals. I have no problem with any of those things, what I have a problem with is placing such paramount importance on a particular social label and its definition.

Not only would I never accuse someone of being gay by choice, I have a long history on GTPlanet of arguing that it is not a choice. I've done that in threads you'd think have no bearing on sexuality whatsoever, but most commonly you'll find me arguing that in religious threads.

The responses below to Imari are for everyone's benefit even though Imari has blocked me:

And I've pointed out that one doesn't need reasons for the way that one feels.

I think I thoroughly responded to this above.

I don't think you're getting this. Have you never had a feeling in your life that was not reasonable?

For sure. For a long time I was afraid to fly. I'd be terrified on aircraft. It was a totally irrational fear. Many people tried to apply logic to it "it's safer than driving" they'd say. And I'd respond and say "yea, I know, it's not rational". I couldn't tell you for sure why I was having that irrational feeling, but I definitely could tell you why I described it as "fear". See the parallel here? I want to know why it's described as "male" or "female", not why it exists.

"I appear to resemble this group of people that I label as 'men' more than I appear to resemble this other group of people that I label as 'women'."

You'd think transgender folks would be some of the first to fight categorization based on personal appearance.

That not discriminatory. That's making the sensible observation that while humanity is a spectrum, there are at least two major nodes and that it can be useful to label those. It can also be useful to identify which of those two you most identify with, or whether you identify with neither in cases such as yourself.

Why are there two major nodes, why not 5, why not 100? Why is it useful to perpetuate these stereotypes? What you're effectively saying is that while there is a massive and strange spectrum of humanity, in order to try to fit within these absurd boxes that people are supposed to fit into, I will tell everyone that I fit in this one best. It perpetuates the stereotype.

Except nobody is insisting that they be called a man because they have male features. They want to be called a man because that feels more right to them than being called a woman. You're getting cause and effect mixed up.

I didn't just mean physical features. I meant... aspects... traits... characteristics.

Nobody is saying "this definition is the right one for everyone". They're saying "this definition is the right one for me". That's not discriminatory, that's honest. That makes no evaluation of anyone else, explicit or implicit, that's simply one person sharing which category they feel that they fit best into.

It's one person subscribing to the categorization that causes all the mess in the first place. They're not saying "this one is right for me", they're saying "this language is most correct". All you're doing is applying words. I can't say "gay feels right for me", because gay has a meaning. If I say "I feel gay but I'm a man who prefers women"... does that make any sense at all? If I decide that, for me, left is right and right is left, I'm left being unable to communicate right. By changing the term you're trying to communicate something, a meaning. And that meaning is a stereotype.

Don't be an idiot. My perception of happiness was formed well before I was capable of memory or conscious thought. Babies straight out of the womb can display characteristic behaviours of happiness and sadness.

First of all, I think idiot is uncalled for. Secondly, I know you had emotions before you could talk. That's kinda my point. You had these emotions before you knew what to call them. If everyone called happiness anger and anger happiness, you'd call it that too. Whenever you smiled you'd say you were angry and everyone would agree. You weren't born calling one thing man and one thing woman, you learned it. You learned what those terms mean, and you learned to apply those stereotypes to everyone. Then, one day, you learned that they don't always apply, that they leave some people out in the cold. Those people are frantically trying to get everyone to call them by the right stereotype, but the real problem is the stereotype itself, it's narrow, it's ill-defined. To get hung up on its application is to adhere to that stereotype, to insist that the label has meaning. To get indignant at being called "she" when you'd prefer to be called "he" is to give that term meaning, a strong meaning, a meaning sufficient to make you indignant.

I couldn't tell you specifically even if there were specifics.

They were your words not mine.

Which comes back to the first part of that, then. Are you aware that all people don't feel alike?

I think I've addressed this one rather thoroughly above, at least 6 times.

Don't give me that. You've got enough time to type up treatises when you feel like it. Give proper answers or don't bother with your snippy quips. That doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Incorrect. I have time to type up treatises when I have time to type up treatises. Trust me, I'd always like to type up another treatise. If I don't give quick responses the thread goes on without me and people start labeling me a transgenderophobe based on a series of misunderstandings about my post. Sometimes I have just enough time to correct a few misunderstandings and that's it.

Welcome to the human mind. Categorisation is what we do. Sometimes it can be harmful, but mostly it's a very useful heuristic so that we don't have to learn about every single thing we encounter from scratch. "Man" and "Woman" are useful categories that unfortunately sometimes get used in situations where they're more harmful than useful. But that doesn't mean that they should be ignored.

"Man" and "Woman" are useful categories for two reasons that I can think of off the top of my head. Science and intercourse. Neither of those is well served by our current social definitions.

I think you're also missing the fact that humans are in general social animals. They want to fit in, or at least to find their place. You might be an exception, but most people find it uncomfortable to be a lone individualist.

Oh I very much get that people want to fit in. So much so that they'll apply sexist definitions to themselves as part of their backlash against sexism. I have no problem with wanting to fit in. I'm just calling it what it is.

The more you type, the more I get the impression that you're just not getting any of this simply because it doesn't mesh with the way that you personally feel.

Just giving you concrete examples.

And there it is.

This is you denying that other people feel the way they say they do. Is that really your intention?

It's not. You picked a word to describe a feeling, you have a reason for picking the word.

Nobody is claiming to know what it feels like to be a certain gender. They're claiming that they feel like that gender. There's a difference.

Not so much no. In order to "feel like that gender", you need to "know what it feels like to be a certain gender".

Have you ever had a dream in which you were an animal of some sort? Say, a seagull. You have no idea what it feels like to be a seagull, but in the dream you sure felt like you were a seagull. When you describe the dream to someone else, you might say "I was a seagull in this dream last night".

You don't have to know what it would be like to be something to feel as if you are that something. The brain is a tricky thing. All the brain has to do is think that it feels like it is that something, and that's enough, since it's all perception anyway.

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

It is not just my statements that @Danoff is disagreeing with, they are also disagreeing with actual researched information from scientists and medical personal who have taken on gender and the related issues (biologically and identity wise) as a specialist professional branch, and have centred their entire career on it.

Please elaborate on that and quote me. I don't think anything I have said contradicts anything scientific, but I could be wrong.

and have been accused of being both bigots and sexist (@Danoff. Which is very clearly intentional, as it has repeatedly being the basis of his argument and the points he has put forward. To the point it has been used several times as a device to further said argument on more than one occasion.).

To be fair to me, I didn't claim that transgender people are bigots and sexist (or if I did, it was a mistake). I claimed that insisting that the world recognize you as a particular gender is bigoted and sexist. That goes for everyone, including me.

The alternative is to just call people what they want to be called and accept that it doesn't really matter if someone is a he or she in terms of what they can do in society, unless it's something that specifically depends on genetics.

...which I'm fine with actually. What I'm not fine with is the instance on being called by a certain pronoun. I have no problem using whatever pronoun someone wants me to use. I have a problem with someone getting indignant if I use the wrong one as though it matters.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

I think the seagull dream thing was meant as an example of a non-prerequisite thought. I keep going back to humans in isolation though. In this case if a person with no experience of any flying object or creature had a dream where they were up in the air, they would only be able to know that much - that they were up in the air. If they then saw a seagull, they would most likely identify that as the thing they were in the dream. If following that they saw a parrot with it's wings clipped, they may assume that they were not a parrot in the dream. But woah!!!! It turns out that they were actually a parrot in the dream, and that the maimed parrot they saw in real life was living it's life below it's would be full potential.

We need to stop crippling "parrots" most urgently, but continue to care for "seagulls" that believe they need "clipped wings", even if it's just because they happen to walk a lot.

 

[Siren]

You have two terms you can choose from, "man" and "woman". Tell me why you picked the one you did. Don't tell me why you feel a certain way about yourself, tell me why one of those terms is more appropriate to how you feel than the other.

Because in a world that's not perfect, terms and labels are what we humans familiarize ourselves with. Social constructs, injustices, personality, culture, race, gender all makes us different because we don't live in a perfect world and somethings go beyond face value. I'd love to live in a world where gender didn't matter and both men and women can be feminine or masculine and racism didn't exist and homophobia/transphobia/queerphobia didn't exist and absolutely no one is oppressed and we're all treated equally.

But that's certainly not the world that I live in. Femininity is not treated with the same praise as masculinity and in most cases frowned upon. Gender does matter. From the moment a POC is born they are born into a white supremacist world. Homophobia just killed 50+ people 2 days ago. What I'm trying to say is the ideal way that you would like to see things doesn't exist and it probably won't exist for a very a long time because if you were to try that "I don't see gender and I don't see race or sexuality" gimmick then that would be erasure.

Gender isn't a social construct, gender roles are. By nature and imperfection all humans are different, we just happen to have alot in common one way or another. You might not care what pronouns someone use for you but for other people it might be the only tool they have to help them answer the questions "why do I feel different? Why do I hate being in this body but I'd do anything to be in that other body? why do people look at me weird? why did that person or group of people tried to kill me when I was doing absolutely nothing? Why do I feel more accepted around this group of people but hated in that group of people".

When it comes to these kind of topics then these are problem that might not affect you but it affects A LOT of people. Its almost the same concept(NOT THE SAME THING) as it might not affect you that a black person called a white person the N word but it would affect alot of black people if a white person called a black person the N word. Same goes for the word Fag**t. Same goes for pronouns. Imagine if 50+ women died in a mass shooting and the news headlines said "50+ MEN DIED IN MASS SHOOTING". Imagine if 50+ transwomen died in a mass shooting and all the news headlines said "50+ MEN DIED IN MASS SHOOTING". People then try to correct the News outlets and they're like "Well in our opinion their gender doesn't matter..." Its not only erasure but its downright disgusting, and its especially worse when these kinds of things happen to a marginalized group.

Did I answer your question? Not really because I kinda don't have to. I just wanted to give you a little more perspective on things. If I didn't then oh well¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Like I said in an earlier post, people who understand will get it and people who don't just won't understand. Bye now.

 

[1241Penguin]

Because in a world that's not perfect

I just wanted to give you a little more perspective on things.

The funny part is that Danoff (and correct me if I'm wrong, @Danoff) has speaking normatively (how things ought to be, like in a utopian future) since the beginning, which just might change your perspective on what he's saying. He is not disregarding the way things are now and how that could affect one's feelings, and I don't think he's even telling us that that is how we ought to behave right now. Whether you agreed with him up to this point or not, do understand that Danoff is describing a hypothetical, like if we got the power to create a world, this is how we would make the world look.

Obviously we know that the world is imperfect, but that's what we're trying to point out and correct.


Perhaps this is why people seemed to have taken so much offence from Danoff.

 

[Siren]

The funny part is that Danoff (and correct me if I'm wrong, @Danoff) has speaking normatively (how things ought to be, like in a utopian future) since the beginning, which just might change your perspective on what he's saying. He is not disregarding the way things are now and how that could affect one's feelings, and I don't think he's even telling us that that is how we ought to behave right now. Whether you agreed with him up to this point or not, do understand that Danoff is describing a hypothetical, like if we got the power to create a world, this is how we would make the world look.

Obviously we know that the world is imperfect, but that's what we're trying to point out and correct.


Perhaps this is why people seemed to have taken so much offence from Danoff.

I'm with him on what he's saying though. I'm not taking offence to it at all because I understand what he's saying. Actually I wish cis heteros (assuming he's cis hetero) were more neutral like this.

 

[nascarfan1400]

Gonna save myself the headaches, and just leave my two cents and go:

There are more than 2 genders. Trans is not a choice, but it is beautiful. Trans is not a fetish. Trans is something I will support to the day I die, along with all LGBT groups. And to all the transgirls and transguys reading this, out or not, you are incredibly brave, and I respect you all greatly.

Have a good day everyone.

 

[Spurgy 777]

From the moment a POC is born they are born into a white supremacist world.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting the majority of people are white supremacists? Citation please.

 

[Carbonox]

From the moment a POC is born they are born into a white supremacist world.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting the majority of people are white supremacists? Citation please.

Not to mention "POC" is a completely useless categorization that makes no sense in the first place because last time I checked, white people have skin color too.

 

[LeMansAid]

Wait, what? Are you suggesting the majority of people are white supremacists? Citation please.

The Chinese..... big time white supremacists from what I hear.

I think there's some sort of a fixation. This one, to me, gives off a similar vibe....

Knowing that the majority of transphobia comes cis Hetero males is very interesting as well.

@Siren, "interesting" comes across as a very loaded word here. What is the yet-to-be-articulated-despite-being-questioned intent?

 

[Danoff]

But that's certainly not the world that I live in.

There is no downside to this. Not caring whether you're called "he" or "she" is actually about 1000% easier than trying to correct everyone and it has the added benefit of being more consistent and doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes. In this case, it's actually easier to do the right thing than it is to do what people are doing.

Here's the two-step Danoff process for people of any gender or sex
1) Figure out which pronoun you'd like people to use
2) Don't care too much whether they use it

 

[Obelisk]

@Siren Not to antagonize you here, but your choice of words - "White supremacist world", "POC", and implying a majority of transphobia comes from cisgender white men (Which I am, hey!) - all seem to tell me you're one of those special butterflies that reside on Tumblr, otherwise called a SJW.

Please don't start antagonizing everyone here with the SJW crap.

 

[polysmut]

@Danoff got some stick over the last few pages but I find his(?) idea interesting.

I can't help but feel that some of the reactions to his posts were formed from the assumption that he had an issue with transgender people. An assumption that he has done nothing to warrant.

Just looking at the question he raises & treating it as something to think about is really interesting.

He hasn't said that feeling a certain way is wrong or that being transgender is wrong.
The question is just about whether labelling your feeling or identity as "he", "she", "male", "female" or anything else is sexist.
If labelling oneself as such is to ascribe stereotypes to those terms then it's a valid point/question.

 

[dylansan]

There is no downside to this. Not caring whether you're called "he" or "she" is actually about 1000% easier than trying to correct everyone and it has the added benefit of being more consistent and doesn't perpetuate negative stereotypes. In this case, it's actually easier to do the right thing than it is to do what people are doing.

Ok, it's clear now that I misunderstood your point from your other posts. However, I'm still not sure I'm in complete agreement, here. In principle, I am, but it practice, it goes farther than just going against the grain.

Here's the two-step Danoff process for people of any gender or sex
1) Figure out which pronoun you'd like people to use
2) Don't care too much whether they use it

It's great and all to think that these gender pronouns don't mean much, but unfortunately they do have implied meaning, and unless you explain to someone that you're trying to change the world by ignoring gender stereotypes, a man being called "she" has every reason to wonder why, even if it has nothing to do with being personally offended.

There are already many people who don't bother using the preferred terms for trans people. Many of them are bigots trying to express their disapproval by refusing to acknowledge their preferences. You're obviously not one of them, but if your choice of words is indistinguishable from theirs, that poses a problem for "being the change you wish to see."

The only reason people would infer anything from a simple choice of words is because "she" and "he" have specific connotations, and when someone uses those words, it's expected that they're trying to convey the meaning behind them.

But OK, obviously people shouldn't jump to conclusions about your words, because they don't imply hatred or bigotry by themselves. If we expect to change anything about language and the perception of these terms, however, I think it's fair to put the same standards on those using the terms as on those hearing them. Is this process fair enough?

1) Figure out which pronouns people would like you to use
2) Don't bother too much deciding which one to use.

That seems to me to convey your intentions pretty well.

So allow me to ask you, how often do you refer to non-trans people with pronouns other than their identity ones?

And how often do you refer to trans people by pronouns other than their identity ones?

I'm going to assume, based on your other comments, that you're actually pretty consistent with both. But I hope you can understand why, if someone were to be much more consistent for cis-gender people than trans people, it would be hard for others to accept that they meant nothing by it, and hard for a trans person to just ignore the fact that this person is happy to refer to most people by the gender they identify with, but not trans people.

So yes, no one should be indignant about being called the wrong thing. But I think trans people have every right to expect the same amount of respect for their identity as anyone else.

As for change, assuming that other people aren't trying to slight you when sometimes they are isn't going to change anything. Cis-gender people could follow your process too but considering how rarely they'll be called anything but what they prefer anyway, it doesn't really matter. A minority of people ensuring that others don't have to worry about the connotations of their words does not positive change make. Change comes from the people who have to make the tough decisions and meaningful choices. From the people who know that words have a set meaning so long as people use them in those same contexts, and so start to use them differently. It won't come from people hoping that if they ignore other people's words long enough, the words will lose their implications.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, it's clear now that I misunderstood your point from your other posts. However, I'm still not sure I'm in complete agreement, here. In principle, I am, but it practice, it goes farther than just going against the grain.

I'm happy that we're this far.

It's great and all to think that these gender pronouns don't mean much, but unfortunately they do have implied meaning, and unless you explain to someone that you're trying to change the world by ignoring gender stereotypes, a man being called "she" has every reason to wonder why, even if it has nothing to do with being personally offended.

There are already many people who don't bother using the preferred terms for trans people. Many of them are bigots trying to express their disapproval by refusing to acknowledge their preferences. You're obviously not one of them, but if your choice of words is indistinguishable from theirs, that poses a problem for "being the change you wish to see."

The only reason people would infer anything from a simple choice of words is because "she" and "he" have specific connotations, and when someone uses those words, it's expected that they're trying to convey the meaning behind them.

But OK, obviously people shouldn't jump to conclusions about your words, because they don't imply hatred or bigotry by themselves. If we expect to change anything about language and the perception of these terms, however, I think it's fair to put the same standards on those using the terms as on those hearing them. Is this process fair enough?

1) Figure out which pronouns people would like you to use
2) Don't bother too much deciding which one to use.

I do this with peoples' names. I taught a class once where instead of trying to learn my students' names I just gave them new names. One guy always wore the same hat to class so I started calling him "funky hat" instead of whatever his name was. I don't know what his name was. Weirdly, in my head, the names I gave them had a lot more meaning than "Stan" or "Aden" (why is everyone named Aden or Jaden or Kaden or Ayden these days? Ironically I never hear Raiden, which would be awesome and I would immediately have to repeat in a gruff voice).

But I do try to get peoples' names right, and I try to get their pronouns correct too. It's a sign of respect or recognition. I've taken the time to learn your name and learn your personal preferences about how you'd like to be addressed. If someone likes to be referred to as "Doctor" I try to do that (even though that's kindof obnoxious).

I have no problem with people spending tons of time trying to make sure that they use the personal pronoun of someone's preference. That's just them trying to make sure that person is comfortable and feels respected. This is an A->B is not the same as B->A situation. It's perfectly fine to concern one's self with ensuring that the demands of others are met. It's not necessarily fine for others to make those demands.

Here's another example. Someone you know is visiting from Japan. In order to make them comfortable you try to greet them here in the US with a bow when they arrive. I have no problem with someone taking a 40 hour class learning all of the ins and outs of Japanese bowing to try to get the angle, eye contact, and context correct when they bow so that their friends feel respected and comfortable.

But... if they didn't do that, and they greeted their Japanese friend with a handshake instead of a bow when they got off the plane here in the US, that Japanese person would be a complete jerk to say "what? no bow? are you crazy? I'm japanese! How can you not bow? You're not respecting my culture or my wishes!" If you think they're not a jerk for saying that, imagine going over to Japan and when they bow instead of offering you a handshake saying "what? no handshake? are you crazy? I'm American! How can you not offer a handshake? You're not respecting my culture or my wishes!"

So feel free to bother all you want trying to figure out what pronouns to use, but getting upset at the wrong one is off the table. You could, however, get upset at other things, like intentional use of the wrong one to show disrespect. It's not the pronoun you're getting upset with, it's the intended meaning conveyed. Anything can be used to show disrespect. A salute can be used to show disrespect if it's done to imply that someone is overbearing or controlling. The word "hello" can be used to show disrespect, Seinfeld has a great delivery on that one.... "Hello Newman". Nobody gets upset because of the word "Hello", they get upset because it is spat at them with disdain.

So allow me to ask you, how often do you refer to non-trans people with pronouns other than their identity ones?

And how often do you refer to trans people by pronouns other than their identity ones?

I have no idea. I've never had anyone correct me on my use of a pronoun before. I really don't know the gender identifies of about 99.9% of most of the people I know. I just assume them based on stereotypes. My wife might identify as a man for all I know, but she's never told me otherwise or expressed a desire to be referred to as "he". I just guess at everyone's gender identity (and sex for that matter). If I've gotten some wrong, I don't know about it.

I'm going to assume, based on your other comments, that you're actually pretty consistent with both. But I hope you can understand why, if someone were to be much more consistent for cis-gender people than trans people, it would be hard for others to accept that they meant nothing by it, and hard for a trans person to just ignore the fact that this person is happy to refer to most people by the gender they identify with, but not trans people.

So yes, no one should be indignant about being called the wrong thing. But I think trans people have every right to expect the same amount of respect for their identity as anyone else.

Certainly I won't argue that trans people deserve less respect for any reason (identity or otherwise) than anyone else. But getting indignant should be a response to an intentional disrespect, and don't take that lightly either. My main point is that if you allow the wrong pronoun to be disrespectful per se, it becomes sexist. If you cannot tolerate any other pronoun it becomes sexist. If it is insulting because someone cannot remember the pronoun for you, or can't figure it out, or slips up and accidentally trips over their own stereotype, it becomes sexist for one to treat that as an insult.

Change comes from the people who have to make the tough decisions and meaningful choices. From the people who know that words have a set meaning so long as people use them in those same contexts, and so start to use them differently. It won't come from people hoping that if they ignore other people's words long enough, the words will lose their implications.

You're actually more likely to change someone's mind by being patient, easy to talk to, and non-contradictory (in other words, clear), than you are by being confrontational, indignant, angry, or by attempting to play by the other side's rules.

 

[dylansan]

You're actually more likely to change someone's mind by being patient, easy to talk to, and non-contradictory (in other words, clear), than you are by being confrontational, indignant, angry, or by attempting to play by the other side's rules.

I agree entirely. The only change I would make to your ideal thought process would be to change

Don't care too much whether they use it

to

Don't get angry about whether they use it

In other words, people should understand that people make mistakes or aren't completely aware of certain things, and so shouldn't be offended by the incorrect language, but as far as "caring," there's certainly room for people to explain why another's words are potential hurtful, and to get clarification on their intended meaning and educate them about the implications of certain words and phrases. If you know someone's only using a word because they refuse to accept your preference, I don't think it's sexist to be upset by that.

Which I think is pretty much what you're saying, anyway.

 

[Danoff]

If you know someone's only using a word because they refuse to accept your preference, I don't think it's sexist to be upset by that.

I don't agree. But I would say that if someone is only using a word because they intend to insult you, it's not sexist to get upset by that. If they refuse to accept your preference, why do you care? It means that they have a different definition for those words than you do. It means they've got some preconceived stereotypes for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. If you come back at them and say, "No you have it wrong, I have it right", you're making the same mistake.

 

[LeMansAid]

Trans is not a choice

It could be. Would it be a problem for you if someone transitioned for a reason other than feeling as if they were born the wrong biological gender? Say, for argument's sake, to be able to make more money as a sex worker?

Trans is not a fetish

It could be. Would it be a problem for you if someone transitioned due to fetish appeal?

And to all the transgirls and transguys reading this, out or not, you are incredibly brave, and I respect you all greatly.

Sorry but there is no doubt that some of them are cowards, and that some of them do not deserve respect. As would be the case with most if not all demographics.

I don't know your age, but your post comes close to typifying the manifestation of a fear I expressed a while back.

I've been thinking about generations a bit recently. I've been recognising that in all likelihood, the baby boomers and gen x will be some of the most fascinating old people that the world has ever seen - resplendent in their genuine quirkiness, enlightened but irreverent characters, and baring the battle scars and badges of having been through some extremely accelerated societal changes. Where generations before were largely forced into molds, and expected to be "proper", those two saw the dawn of a new era, and very much broke the mold. So what of gen y and onward? To be frank, I see a different mold, but a mold all the same. I see a complete lack of being able to accept that some people are gnarled and different, and a compulsion to arrest and destroy the development of anything outside of the new normal. I remember BHXRacer bringing up the concept of homophobophobia, and while it probably didn't come from the right mouth, I think it's a worthwhile concept to consider, when (as you've previously pointed to) there's a tendency to jump on anything at all at odds with the views of "the enlightened", and beat all the life out of it, and them.

Your words present to me as an example of "acceptance by numbers". I'd also fully expect you to cry "racism" if someone said something discriminatory about Muslims (Islam not being a race, being the point). I apologise if I'm way off mark, but we need people to actually engage the thought process, and not just quote from "The Book Of How To Be Just - 2016 edition". This post will probably come across as abrasive, but that's not the goal. The trouble that @Danoff has had in getting his thought process to register and have it even vaguely understood in this thread tells me that too many people are not thinking directly about what is right and fair, but merely considering what "the rules" of the day are.

 

[dylansan]

I don't agree. But I would say that if someone is only using a word because they intend to insult you, it's not sexist to get upset by that. If they refuse to accept your preference, why do you care? It means that they have a different definition for those words than you do. It means they've got some preconceived stereotypes for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. If you come back at them and say, "No you have it wrong, I have it right", you're making the same mistake.

Ok, I can accept that, but I think that sort of situation is very uncommon. Other definitions of male and female based on other stereotypes is one thing, but it's far more common for people to use words based entirely on genetics and chromosomes. And those people never seem to care about genetics unless it's specifically in regards to a trans person, so in that case, I'd argue it's offensive.

I think once you're talking about someone who's genetically male but has female reproductive organs, it's hard to have any consistent definition that would call that person "him" that doesn't involve a DNA test. So I just don't see that happening very often.

But mainly, it's just such a low-effort thing that doesn't require much thought or care. If you're not sure, just ask. Who are these people going around deciding whether people seem more feminine or masculine and then using pronouns based on that? Everyone just seems to take people's word for it...unless they're trans, in which case some are less willing.

Can you give any examples of people who've referred to cis-gendered males as females because they thought they looked feminine and then refused to change their minds? Or vice-versa? Because I've never heard of that happening, but there are plenty of instances of people refusing to call trans people with the word they like. So unless those people do the same thing with non-trans people, I have trouble believing that it has to do with a "different definition" of masculine and feminine, unless that definition includes genetics, which again would be hypocritical for anyone who doesn't carry around toothpicks for mouth-swabs of everyone they meet.

No one should get angry at someone using the "wrong" term. But if someone insists on calling you by something other than what you identify as, I think there's every reason to ask why, because in most cases it's going to come down to bigotry or hypocrisy.

 

[Danoff]

No one should get angry at someone using the "wrong" term. But if someone insists on calling you by something other than what you identify as, I think there's every reason to ask why, because in most cases it's going to come down to bigotry or hypocrisy.

Yea, usually it'd come down to bigotry or hypocrisy I'm sure. But not always, and maybe not even as commonly as you think.

Ok, I can accept that, but I think that sort of situation is very uncommon. Other definitions of male and female based on other stereotypes is one thing, but it's far more common for people to use words based entirely on genetics and chromosomes. And those people never seem to care about genetics unless it's specifically in regards to a trans person, so in that case, I'd argue it's offensive.

I think once you're talking about someone who's genetically male but has female reproductive organs, it's hard to have any consistent definition that would call that person "him" that doesn't involve a DNA test. So I just don't see that happening very often.

But mainly, it's just such a low-effort thing that doesn't require much thought or care. If you're not sure, just ask. Who are these people going around deciding whether people seem more feminine or masculine and then using pronouns based on that? Everyone just seems to take people's word for it...unless they're trans, in which case some are less willing.

Can you give any examples of people who've referred to cis-gendered males as females because they thought they looked feminine and then refused to change their minds? Or vice-versa? Because I've never heard of that happening, but there are plenty of instances of people refusing to call trans people with the word they like. So unless those people do the same thing with non-trans people, I have trouble believing that it has to do with a "different definition" of masculine and feminine, unless that definition includes genetics, which again would be hypocritical for anyone who doesn't carry around toothpicks for mouth-swabs of everyone they meet.

Most of your argument seems to be centered around equal treatment. You want to see people approach trans individuals with the same sort of approach they do for everyone else. I get that, totally. But you have no right to demand that of the world. There are a million reasons not to treat you equally. Maybe you have a tattoo, or don't have a tattoo. Maybe you have the wrong clothes, you smoke, you don't smoke, you aren't as attractive as someone else, you aren't as muscular as someone else, or you aren't as funny as someone else. People get to do that, they get to have double standards and weird values. They get to be hypocrites. None of that makes them good people.

But for you to insist that they change, that they adopt your definition, that they adopt your label, implies that you're right about your definition, and you're not because it's an arbitrary word in a language. Any reason you give for why that word is more correct undermines your goal.

You're right to say that you should ask why they refuse, and that the reason would probably be grounds for a rant.

 

[dylansan]

But for you to insist that they change, that they adopt your definition, that they adopt your label, implies that you're right about your definition, and you're not because it's an arbitrary word in a language. Any reason you give for why that word is more correct undermines your goal.

What if I don't demand that they use my label, but just insist that they use the same criteria for everyone? They don't need to agree with my definitions, they just need to decide between accepting people's preferences or... not.

Just to go back to the Japanese example, since it was bugging me. Japanese is a different language and culture, and you're right that a Japanese person shouldn't be offended if I don't know all their customs and gestures. But since we're talking about English, and about words that everyone already knows, it's not really the same. Using pronouns for one person doesn't require more learning or study than using them for another. We already know the words. It's like if I already knew a bunch of rude Japanese gestures and used them at a Japanese person. I couldn't then claim that it's not my duty to be inclusive.

But yeah, your last line sums up how I would handle it. If someone wants to call me Ms. because they call eveyone that, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Valkyr1313]

It could be. Would it be a problem for you if someone transitioned for a reason other than feeling as if they were born the wrong biological gender? Say, for argument's sake, to be able to make more money as a sex worker?

Well technically in that case they wouldn't be transgender. There are a lot of different terms that you can use for them in this case, however the most common might be drag queen or "sissy"

It could be. Would it be a problem for you if someone transitioned due to fetish appeal?

Again, not really transgender. As with above, there are more terms. In this case "sissy" would probably be the one being used

Sorry but there is no doubt that some of them are cowards, and that some of them do not deserve respect. As would be the case with most if not all demographics.

I don't know your age, but your post comes close to typifying the manifestation of a fear I expressed a while back.

Hi, yes, I am trans. Do you know how much bravery it takes to come out to a world where you are hated by a large number of people? The average life expectancy of a trans person is 30-32 years. Statistically speaking, there is a decent chance I've lived over half my life already. Any recommendations on how to spend my twighlight years? Even worse, the suicide attempt rate among trans and gender non-conforming people is 41%. So yes, I'm about 200% sure that we aren't cowards at all for trying be ourselves and live authenticity. And, as far as the respect goes. Just treat us like a person. That's all we want.

What is this fear that you had when you were younger? That people would step up and treat LGBT people and other minorities like people?


Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162100680/no-more-lying-law-bolsters-transgender-argentines




This is for everyone in this thread: please, yes, go on and keep telling me how you think that I am ignoring science or religion or some other stupid thing that you know about from your kooky uncle Bob. Because obviously you know more about trans people than people who are actually trans. Makes visits to GTP a little bit less enjoyable honestly.

And finally: for the last time transgendered is not a word. Being trans is not a verb. You don't stop being transgender like you stop cookibg or eating or sleeping. It's an adjective used to describe a person. I'm transgender in the same way that I have brown hair. They both describe me.

 

[ryzno]

This is going to sound ignorant but, from my understanding you're not born transgender but you become transgender after the medical procedures. So I can see how some people could see it as a verb.

I mean no offense, I'm trying to learn as I go along.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well technically in that case they wouldn't be transgender. There are a lot of different terms that you can use for them in this case, however the most common might be drag queen or "sissy" Again, not really transgender. As with above, there are more terms. In this case "sissy" would probably be the one being used

You're not trans if you go through gender reassignment surgery for income earning or for fetish reasons? Why do your motives for undergoing gender reassignment determine what label is attached to you?

And, as far as the respect goes. Just treat us like a person. That's all we want.

By postulating that not all trans people are brave and likely some are indeed cowards and not deserving of respect, @LeMansAid is only saying that trans people are not a homogeneus group and shouldn't be viewed as one. Isn't that the goal?

This is for everyone in this thread: please, yes, go on and keep telling me how you think that I am ignoring science or religion or some other stupid thing that you know about from your kooky uncle Bob. Because obviously you know more about trans people than people who are actually trans. Makes visits to GTP a little bit less enjoyable honestly.

It's a discussion. People have alternate views to yours. If that makes it less enjoyable debate them straight up and try to convince them of your side of the argument. Or, go sulk in a corner because, you know, you're always right because you're trans.

And finally: for the last time transgendered is not a word. Being trans is not a verb. You don't stop being transgender like you stop cookibg or eating or sleeping. It's an adjective used to describe a person. I'm transgender in the same way that I have brown hair. They both describe me.

I knew a brown haired boy once. He was no less a person for it either.

 

[ryzno]

So am I right, wrong, dumb??? I am trying to figure it out. Does saying, I feel like a woman automatically make me transgender? I really don't get it. I always thought a man felling like a woman to be homosexual. I really am lost trying to figure out whats, what. What actually defines transgender? Sexuality? Gender?

 

[Dan]

So am I right, wrong, dumb??? I am trying to figure it out. Does saying, I feel like a woman automatically make me transgender? I really don't get it. I always thought a man felling like a woman to be homosexual. I really am lost trying to figure out whats, what. What actually defines transgender? Sexuality? Gender?

I'm bisexual. I've never felt like a woman.

 

[BobK]

So am I right, wrong, dumb??? I am trying to figure it out. Does saying, I feel like a woman automatically make me transgender? I really don't get it. I always thought a man felling like a woman to be homosexual. I really am lost trying to figure out whats, what. What actually defines transgender? Sexuality? Gender?

A man "feeling like" a woman isn't necessarily homosexual. A homosexual is a man who prefers to have sex with other men rather than women, or a woman who prefers to have sex with other women rather than men; the latter are more commonly known as lesbians.

However, at this point I'm a little fuzzy on just what "man" and "woman" mean. So I share much of your confusion.

 

[LeMansAid]

@RedDragon It looks to me that in being ever-ready to take offence, you pretty much missed every one of my points completely.

Well technically in that case they wouldn't be transgender. There are a lot of different terms that you can use for them in this case, however the most common might be drag queen or "sissy"

Again, not really transgender. As with above, there are more terms. In this case "sissy" would probably be the one being used

Your attitude flies in the face of true acceptance - and you are seriously adding an extra kick in the once-were-balls by throwing "sissy" out there? We're meant to believe you will draw such a brutal and judgemental line between "I feel like I am a woman" and "I want to be a woman", while thinking that you are part of "the enlightened"? I get that your experience of being questioned on this topic might have come from intolerant people in the past, but the reality is that in this case you are the less tolerant. Quite a few of the people you are likely looking down at from your high horse are actually saying "Everyone, you can be whatever and whoever you want or need to be. For any reason". Tell me what's problematic about that.

Hi, yes, I am trans. Do you know how much bravery it takes to come out to a world where you are hated by a large number of people?

I responded to "And to all the transgirls and transguys reading this, out or not, you are incredibly brave, and I respect you all greatly".

It is prejudiced to attribute that bravery and being deserving of respect is unerringly embodied by trans people - but more than anything in this case it comes across as just "follow the leader' fluff. We need people that would have stood up for the right of people to be homosexuals, trans, asexuals, etc. in any time period - and for that matter adulterers, polygamists, the incestuous, atheists, and anything else you can think of where the people in question would not have been doing a single thing to hurt anyone else.

What is this fear that you had when you were younger? That people would step up and treat LGBT people and other minorities like people?

This is you "missing the barn door" since my fear (did you even bother to read?) is possibly the absolute antithesis. That people will be showing support in appearance only (thanks to being molded) and not actually properly addressing the issue of what it is to truly accepting. I promise you that there are a lot of people "going with the flow" at present. Those people, if society were to take a turn for the worse, will go from being your supposed ally to your enemy in a heart beat if their survival (or even just comfort) depends on it.

You are way off in interpreting what I am trying to put across. Frankly it pisses me off, but also hurts a great deal. I refuse to have memorialised misrepresentations of my attitude and character, and won't hesitate to report any of your posts if I feel that has happened.

I (and my like) am not the enemy. Very far from it.