Transgender Thread.

[ryzno]

Wow this seem's to be getting personal now. Everyone just, sit back take a smoke, take a sip and chill. Everyone has their opinion and no one wants to harm anyone.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Now imagine you had a woman's body, but would still identify as a male, that's all there is to it, at least with this kind of transgender.

But that doesn't help, the only reason I assume I think and feel like a man is because I'm male, if I was female I'd have no reason not to assume I think and feel like a woman, even if I thought and felt like I do now.

You can go further and ask a man what it feels like to be a man. Does that even make sense? It was covered early in the thread by the way, so look back for some good posts on that topic.

I don't really see gender as all that meaningful. I have no reason to treat men and women differently, and I have no reason to think I should have been any different if I was born differently.

Exactly, which is why I don't get how people can know they're the wrong gender as it seems to be such a subjective concept.

I'll have a look back if I can get the time, thanks for letting me know.

 

[LeMansAid]

@nataliereed84 At no point did you do the courtesy of quoting even a single post from the previous discussions, as far as I can see. That, despite repeatedly swinging wildly with the "spewing hatred" mantra, in reference to those discussions. That's not fair, and as someone that has been an active participant in this thread, I'd appreciate some clarification.

Coming in, all guns blazing, is a fraught practice already - let alone going off half cocked (ahem).

 

[polysmut]

A new article from the science editor at The Guardian.
Gender identity and the big questions that have yet to be answered

 

[Com Fox]

As I said to @RESHIRAM5 when he first started this thread, they always become a cancer on the internet; because the bigots always ignore the people who are actually transgender and/or suffer with gender dysphoria; and do/say everything they can to invalidate us.

Topics like these only really become "cancer on the internet" when people get sensitive on the subject.

I don't get why are you being this sensitive and calling people transphobic on the what @Danoff and @Famine are saying. The definition of transphobic is to have an intense dislike or prejudice towards transgenders which they aren't doing judging by what I read through, just discussions about understanding transgenders.

Not Understanding =/= Hatred

 

[nataliereed84]

@LeMansAid

Please leave me out of this. I've said my piece. You all know what I think. I want to give this thread and you all a very very wide berth. And I absolutely DID provide concrete examples, multiple times, as Famine kept repeatedly pushing me for them.

I'd rather just play with the XJi3 I finally had the credits for, and my new giftcar Enzo, thankyouverymuch.

@S_Bridge

That's a pretty well-written and well-informed piece. The Guardian, sadly, usually aren't that accurate on these subjects, and have a bit of a history of supporting a certain kind of anti-trans feminist rhetoric. And there was that ludicrous Rupert Everett editorial the other week about the danger of (non-existent) "child sex change operations". But this one is interesting and informative. Thanks for bringing a bit of adult discussion in here.

 

[FoRiZon]

I hope that one day, people will see LGBT people and thought "Who gives a crap about their personal things".

Whatever you think these things is wrong or sin is irrelevant. You should keep that thought to yourself and just dont spew that into others.

Your life is yours and mine is mine, period.

 

[LeMansAid]

A new article from the science editor at The Guardian.
Gender identity and the big questions that have yet to be answered

From the article...

A person’s sexual identity can be thought of as a product of four related factors: their biological sex; their sexual orientation; the gender they feel; and the gender that dominates the way they behave.

The mysterious "the gender they feel" arises yet again, but now we have "the gender that dominates the way they behave" as well. Sexist, conformist tripe. I'm also failing to see what sexual orientation (assuming they are referring to sexual attraction) has to do with gender identity, outside of learned stereotypes.

That leaves us with "biological sex". Personally I'd like that one to be merely academic, and a technical categorisation that is irrelevant wherever and whenever possible. We're at a point where thankfully some of our societies are at least somewhat equipped to accept without judgement, every appearance and behaviour under the Sun, but we're ruining that by insisting on prolonging stereotyping in the name of a pale, and short-sighted form of acceptance. An "acceptance" that will condemn future atypical people to all but the same torturous road that current and past atypical people have travelled.

 

[stonesfan129]

I hope that one day, people will see LGBT people and thought "Who gives a crap about their personal things".

Whatever you think these things is wrong or sin is irrelevant. You should keep that thought to yourself and just dont spew that into others.

Your life is yours and mine is mine, period.

You state that a person's opinion is irrelevant and should be kept to oneself. Do you also feel the same way towards LGBT folks? That it their views are irrelevant and should be kept to themselves? Somehow I am seeing a double-standard here.

 

[Exorcet]

I hope that one day, people will see LGBT people and thought "Who gives a crap about their personal things".

Whatever you think these things is wrong or sin is irrelevant. You should keep that thought to yourself and just dont spew that into others.

Your life is yours and mine is mine, period.

If this is in response to this thread, we reached that point on page 1.

 

[FoRiZon]

I agree, live and let live. But why should people with opposing opinions have to keep that to themselves? Would you also say the same towards LGBT folks? That it is irrelevant and should be kept to themselves? Somehow I am seeing a double-standard here.

Because some people just cant keep it on themselves and will have urge to preach (sometimes force) onto others. Its what happened right now and the reason LGBT people are heavily stigmatized and even outright intervened by government in most countries.

Again, when you look at LGBT people showing their pride, just keep this mantra in your mind: "Who gives a crap" and move on. That is if you dont care or you think its wrong.

Me? Well its their life choice. I wont really bother for them honestly but kinda interested in this topic at some point.

 

[stonesfan129]

Because some people just cant keep it on themselves and will have urge to preach (sometimes force) onto others. Its what happened right now and the reason LGBT people are heavily stigmatized and even outright intervened by government in most countries.

Again, when you look at LGBT people showing their pride, just keep this mantra in your mind: "Who gives a crap". That is if you dont care or you think its wrong.

I really do not care what consenting adults do with their own time. But you failed to answer my question.

You state that a person's opinion is irrelevant and should be kept to oneself. Do you also feel the same way towards LGBT folks? That it their views are irrelevant and should be kept to themselves? Somehow I am seeing a double-standard here.

 

[polysmut]

From the article...

The mysterious "the gender they feel" arises yet again, but now we have "the gender that dominates the way they behave" as well. Sexist, conformist tripe. I'm also failing to see what sexual orientation (assuming they are referring to sexual attraction) has to do with gender identity, outside of learned stereotypes.

That leaves us with "biological sex". Personally I'd like that one to be merely academic, and a technical categorisation that is irrelevant wherever and whenever possible. We're at a point where thankfully some of our societies are at least somewhat equipped to accept without judgement, every appearance and behaviour under the Sun, but we're ruining that by insisting on prolonging stereotyping in the name of a pale, and short-sighted form of acceptance. An "acceptance" that will condemn future atypical people to all but the same torturous road that current and past atypical people have travelled.

The part of the article you quoted was specifically talking about the amount of variables that come into play when trying to assign definitions. [Edit: to sexual identity]

The extent of my knowledge on the topic is very little beyond what I've read in this thread. I'm enjoying the read though, & thinking about things that I hadn't much before.
I've thought a lot about the idea that was presented here, that one can only know how it feels to be themself. Leading to the argument that nobody can know what it feels like to be male or female or whether they feel the same as anybody else.
I felt there was some weight to the idea that it's sexist to identify as a gender as that would be based on an assumption or a steryotype of how it should feel to be that gender.

Of course I don't know if that's all there is to it though. The following suggests not?

Taken together, studies show the brains of trans people are not wholly male or female, but have regions and systems that are selectively masculinised or feminised.

That suggests that science has found something measurable, not reliant on asking how somebody thinks they feel?

 

[LeMansAid]

The part of the article you quoted was specifically talking about the amount of variables that come into play when trying to assign definitions.

And was framed by the context of the question of whether or not the definitions are "stable psychological constructs". It means that they have sexist considerations in play in the assessing of this.

That suggests that science has found something measurable, not reliant on asking how somebody thinks they feel?

It's difficult when they may well be using effectively meaningless terms. "Male", "female", "masculinised", "feminised" brains - what exactly are these units of measure? As presented, they're giving us no reason to believe that it's anything more than circumstantial findings filtered through the same old social constructs to find reference points. They could at least give me some crazy science-y word that I've never heard before, to feign legitimacy.

 

[polysmut]

And was framed by the context of the question of whether or not the definitions are "stable psychological constructs". It means that they have sexist considerations in play in the assessing of this.

It was somewhat framed by the context of whether or not the definitions of gender identity are "stable psychological constructs" but it was from the following paragraph which related to definitions of sexual identity.

It's difficult when they may well be using effectively meaningless terms. "Male", "female", "masculinised", "feminised" brains - what exactly are these units of measure? As presented, they're giving us no reason to believe that it's anything more than circumstantial findings filtered through the same old social constructs to find reference points. They could at least give me some crazy science-y word that I've never heard before, to feign legitimacy.

Yes, they may very well be using meaningless terms.
The article suggests there's something measurable. I'd be interested to learn what that is (though apparently not interested enough to do the research myself) & whether it's meaningless or not. I haven't looked into it further though, so I don't know.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Famine I have already gone over those things multiple times, made massive posts quoting how it all started with that stuff; including your own posts back when the debate over trans individuals, public bathrooms, and @Johnnypenso pulling out this card:

Johnnypenso
Pedophiles are known to go to extreme lengths to spend time alone with little boys and girls. Given that there aren't going to be testing stations outside every bathroom in the state to determine the validity of your gender convictions, surely there should be a reasonable level of concern that it might open the door to abuse by some sick and some not so sick individuals.

In Ontario, where I am from, the Ontario College of Teachers has the following guidelines for it's members:

• classroom and office doors are left open
• a third party is present or aware of the meeting
• the student is not physically isolated from other observers, for example, behind closed doors
• they are not alone with an individual student except in urgent or emergency circumstances.

So a professional educator entrusted to work directly with children all day long can't be alone with a student in a huge public building except in an emergency and you don't want to have a conversation about the potential of pedophiles abusing a new set of rules that gives them another avenue of access to be alone with children? You don't understand how that might concern some people?

How would you feel if our roles where reversed?

The roles are reversed. We live with it every day. Are all teachers rapists and pedophiles?

 

[Joey D]

I hope that one day, people will see LGBT people and thought "Who gives a crap about their personal things".

Whatever you think these things is wrong or sin is irrelevant. You should keep that thought to yourself and just dont spew that into others.

Your life is yours and mine is mine, period.

On the flip side why do LGBT folks care so deeply about those who don't approve of their lifestyle? Why do you really care if someone doesn't support you or even thinks what you're doing is wrong. As long as they don't infringe on your rights they should be allowed to think whatever they want. I personally don't agree with some elements that make up the LGBT community and lifestyle, but I would never advocate that people shouldn't live their lives this way, so why am I labelled a hateful bigot when I express my disagreement in a discussion?

Shouldn't LGBT folks keep their thoughts to themselves?

 

[Azuremen]

Because some people just cant keep it on themselves and will have urge to preach (sometimes force) onto others. Its what happened right now and the reason LGBT people are heavily stigmatized and even outright intervened by government in most countries.

Again, when you look at LGBT people showing their pride, just keep this mantra in your mind: "Who gives a crap" and move on. That is if you dont care or you think its wrong.

Freedom of speech for the approved, eh?

It really is odd how often I see LGBT community vocalist suggesting the suppression of other's right to speech because they deem it offensive.

 

[FoRiZon]

Freedom of speech for the approved, eh?

It really is odd how often I see LGBT community vocalist suggesting the suppression of other's right to speech because they deem it offensive.

Im terrible at this, honestly.

What i do know is that sometimes LGBT people does also a bit far. For example I heard the news that some people will do Pride Parade in the notoriously religious community, which i find provocative at best.

Its the matter of the execution really. Its like recent Black Lives Matter thing. Its something we should notice and discuss, be it the socio economic, possible racism, etc. But definitely not with the revenge shooting to police like in Dallas.

NOTE: Im not saying that shooting other people is the same as provocative rallying. But you probably get the idea.

 

[justin credible]

Wow I have just read page 16 and onwards a bit and my head hurts.
Give that Famine bloke/woman their due they sure got patience and a calm manner. No pun intended.

Now any way to the transgender people out there I am old and live a sheltered life and hand on heart didn't know there could be more than male and female in the world until I read this thread.
I know of frogs and some lizards which can change sex to divvy up the status quo of the other sexes around them but that's where my knowledge stops.
I did google it but came out of there more confused, So from the horses mouth please what is transgender?
Is it men who dress as women or women who dress as men or is it men who have an operation to be a woman or women who have an operation to be a man? or am I totally wrong?
Also earlier someone said they would question their mental state and got met with a barrage of stick now is it not right (going on what my mate in the pub said so it could be way wrong) that before any one has an operation to sort there sex out they have to have loads of psychiatric treatment? and isn't psychiatric treatment to assess your mental condition? So what is wrong with that statement why all the stick? No harm intended to anyone if my ignorance on the subject is way off mark I am learning something new.
Cheers.

 

[nataliereed84]

Given that the moderator does not seem to have a very clear understanding of what does or does not qualify as transphobia, I thought I'd take the liberty of providing some examples.

In addition to these, it might be worth also consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center, Amnesty International, the United Nations human rights review, and a few other places devoted to the question of human rights violations. They don't provide snappy little definitions and quick examples, but will CERTAINLY bear out that none of the descriptions of the tone here as "transphobic" are radically inappropriate or off-base.

Reviewing these, you might note that several, arguably ALL, the things Ialyn and myself took issue with fit these definitions. Note that the definition is NOT restricted to "active, conscious, deliberate malice and hatred", and DOES include that which is largely and consistently viewed as OFFENSIVE by a margainlized group. Contrary to the prevailing attitude here, the question of offense is NOT considered irrelevant to the question of what is or is not transphobia, bigotry or hate speech.

You may continue to disagree. I don't care. But at THE VERY LEAST you need to acknowledge that the reactions of Ialyn, RedDragon and myself were not isolated, personal, abberant overreactions, but do indeed have CONSIDERABLE backing and substance.

Merriam-Webster defintiion of transphobia: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia

Not that DISGUST and AVERSION are included, not simply HATRED.

Definition from No Hate Speech:

http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/hate-speech-watch/thesaurus/definition/transphobia/2

Note that PATHOLOGISATION, as in "trangender identity is a mental disorder", is clearly included.

USA legal definition, in which OFFENSE is clearly a factor of importance:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

A more extensive description from Civil Liberty dot com, including examples:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/g/transphobia.htm

More precise examples of what would or would not be considered transphobic:

http://www.lgbt.cusu.cam.ac.uk/resources/trans/tackling-transphobia/

GLAAD, Associated Press and New York Times guidelines on respectful discussion of LGBT people and issues:

http://www.glaad.org/reference/style

GLAAD description of proper terminology:

http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Thank you.

P.S. Someone like @Justincredible, btw, doesn't bother me nearly as much as other people in here. He has said things that would be very offensive, but he has the courtesy and sense to ACKNOWLEDGE that he isn't an expert on the subject and doesn't understand it very well, and would LIKE to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. That is something I respect immensely, the willingness to admit when you don't understand something and could stand to learn more, as well as CARING about other people's feelings more than you care about the sacrosanct importance of Having An Opinion On The Internet.

 

[stonesfan129]

Isn't phobia defined as a fear of something? I simply questioned why one's views should be kept to themselves if they are in opposition to transgenderism. But opinions that are in support of transgenderism should not be kept to oneself. I am pointing out a clear double-standard. I also thought this thread was designed for debate, not to slander someone with different views as a bigot.

 

[1241Penguin]

You'll need to point out for us clearly where Famine (or Danoff for that matter) have been displaying a hatred or "disgust" or "aversion" to transgender people. Instead of thinking that the world is out to get you or something, perhaps you can carry on discussion with a level mind.

 

[LeMansAid]

Please leave me out of this. I've said my piece.

I held up my end. We're on again now?

There is a palpable sense of ye olde and religious mindless condemnation in some of the content in this thread, and it might be right to apply "DISGUST" and "AVERSION" as part of the characterisation of that content - but if you think that that is anywhere near where @Danoff, @Famine, and other like-minded members are coming from, you are demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension. You'd be fighting a monster of your own creation.

 

[nataliereed84]

I'm not interested in "winning" this argument, or convincing anyone that the thread was transphobic. I've long since given up on that.

I'm just concerned with the ongoing characterization of Ialyn's response as being completely ridiculous, as though NO ONE with any sense would have called anything here transphobia. Obviously that's not true.

That's all.

 

[Famine]

Someone like @Justincredible, btw, doesn't bother me nearly as much as other people in here. He has said things that would be very offensive, but he has the courtesy and sense to ACKNOWLEDGE that he isn't an expert on the subject and doesn't understand it very well, and would LIKE to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. That is something I respect immensely, the willingness to admit when you don't understand something and could stand to learn more, as well as CARING about other people's feelings more than you care about the sacrosanct importance of Having An Opinion On The Internet.

And yet, under your rules, if offence can be taken it's transphobic - whether you personally find it offensive or not.

Under those same rules, I could be offended by being called transphobic (or 'the moderator'). Whether you think it's okay to 'call out bigotry' (and create some when you can't find it, apparently) is irrelevant under your own standards - as if someone can be offended by it, it's offensive. If we start down that path we end up with no content. Do you desire special treatment?

So. Given that you said a few times now that you're done with this thread and your repeated reappearances to dictate what's offensive are taking you precisely nowhere, are you done or would you like to contribute?

Perhaps you could start by telling me the exact procedure for encountering a transgender person in my gender-specific bathroom. It's apparently transphobic to neither notice or care as I've always done - since my descent into transphobic started in this thread with a similar query - so what's the correct, non-transphobic way?

 

[justin credible]

So nataliereed84 can I have your version please on what is transgender because I would like to know and also a bit about how you became transgender what happened as such to say is it a choice or is it just the way you were born?
I presume your transgender with all the rants and overkill on the subject but if you are not then sorry for bothering you.
I would rather hear it from a transgender person than trying to google it and end up with bits from people who think they know exactly what it is. Just confuses me more.

 

[justin credible]

A day later I take that as a no to my question then.
Sorry for the double post moderators and Administrator person.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

From the election thread.

How the hell can Pedophilia be a mental disorder and not sexual orientation related but being Transgender isn't?

Can I ask how you think being transgender is related to sexual orientation?

 

[LeMansAid]

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

This still disturbs me. For reference, the responses here were to the questions of whether or not @nascarfan1400 would have a problem with someone who transitioned due to a) simple choice, or b) fetish appeal.

I think that you people that pigeonhole your acceptance of others are dangerous, and display merely a new face twist on old school bigotry. I'm on this right now because I recently wondered about whether or not identical twins have ever turned out to have a one straight/one gay configuration. Answer is a definite yes - example. Now, while I find it a curio, at the same time.... I really don't care. My acceptance of homosexuals is not stifled or bound by it being an exclusively genetic phenomenon. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone willed themselves gay, took a gay pill (were one to exist) to become gay, lived a gay lifestyle while calling themselves gay for greater earning power. Whatever,.... I just.... don't.... care. The acceptance is not conditional on an adherence to pigeonholes created, or on the need to silence religious busy bodies that can only be convinced by a genetic explanation, or any other proviso.

Granted, @RedDragon may be entirely accepting of the "sissies" of this world (though still not allowing them in to "the club" mind you), but the apparent rigidness and the reliance on referencing the "rule book" is regardless, disturbing. The scorn thrown the way of people that have shown true acceptance in this thread brings yet another layer of disturbing to the table.

Enough with the deviously disguised new brand of shackle.