Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,194 comments
  • 129,625 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
I don't care one way or an other what people do with their bodies. I'm pretty open minded about that, and it doesn't bother me one bit.

However, kids should NOT be having surgery for this. Not until they are 18. That shouldn't even be a debate IMO.

Couldn't agree more. I would imagine there may be cases where a decision needs to be made before age 18, specifically at puberty, but even in those cases action should be taken only with the informed consent of the child.

Yes I'm aware that a twelve year old child may not be able to fully comprehend all the issues involved but it's still their body and they are the one who will have to live with whatever the outcome is.
 
Check out this article from USA TODAY:

I was an intersex child who had surgery. Don't put other kids through this.

https://usat.ly/2wGVyuW

The link did not work for me. However, I don't like making decisions off of one anecdote. Sometimes I see people cite sources where an overwhelming majority of people react positively to one thing vs another and then go on to say that the result that showed less success should be abandoned or illegal, etc. What about the small number of people that reacted positively to it? Do we just ignore them?

I see plenty of room for debate unless it's shown that a transition before 18 is 100% harmful all the time.
 
The link did not work for me. However, I don't like making decisions off of one anecdote. Sometimes I see people cite sources where an overwhelming majority of people react positively to one thing vs another and then go on to say that the result that showed less success should be abandoned or illegal, etc. What about the small number of people that reacted positively to it? Do we just ignore them?

I see plenty of room for debate unless it's shown that a transition before 18 is 100% harmful all the time.
I did not make my decision based off of the article, I've felt strongly about this for awhile now.

Young children have no idea what they want, or how they feel. The you have to start wondering how much of it is how they really feel, and how much is outside influence. That's why they can't legally get tattoos until they are 18.

Now a 15 or 16 year old, there's a grey area there I guess, but I still think they should be 18. A ten year old in no way should be having intersex surgery, that is absolutely wrong. I'm not religious, and as I've stated before I've nothing against people who have this operation done, but there's no argument or discussion that can persuade me that a 10 year old should be having sex change surgery. (Unless it's some medical condition/pre-existing condition). A child that young isn't capable of making those sorts of decisions, I don't care how mature they are for their age.
 
Last edited:
I did not make my decision based off of the article, I've felt strongly about this for awhile now.

I was referring more to this:

"I was an intersex child who had surgery. Don't put other kids through this."

Since I could not read the article. One bad experience doesn't really say much.

Young children have no idea what they want, or how they feel. The you have to start wondering how much of it is how they really feel, and how much is outside influence. That's why they can't legally get tattoos until they are 18.
Defining young children is the important part. If it's just about not knowing what they want, that can extend past 18 even. Age is not a great way categorize people even if it's a convenient method. I can acknowledge why it's used but I also think that we should look for a better metric for maturity.

Now a 15 or 16 year old, there's a grey area there I guess
And there is part of the problem already.

A ten year old in no way should be having intersex surgery, that is absolutely wrong.
I'm not convinced. To say it's absolutely wrong would require you to know the outcome of every case of transition at age 10.


A child that young isn't capable of making those sorts of decisions, I don't care how mature they are for their age.
A child that young wouldn't be making the decision in a vacuum even if it was allowed. Allowing it doesn't mean that they can jump off a school bus and get surgery. The parents and doctors will of course be involved.
 
I'm not convinced. To say it's absolutely wrong would require you to know the outcome of every case of transition at age 10.

To be fair she wasn't just speaking for herself.

USA Today
I was born with typically “male” XY chromosomes and internal testes instead of ovaries and a uterus, but my body developed to appear typically female.

My intersex condition was invisible until I reached puberty and failed to menstruate like other girls. On the advice of doctors at a major hospital, my parents agreed that I should have surgery to remove my healthy gonads, without my knowledge or consent.

My natural hormone production ceased, and I was forced onto hormone replacement therapy for the rest of my life. I was just 15. Doctors also recommended to my parents that I receive invasive surgery to create a more “typically” sized vagina — thankfully, my parents refused. I didn’t find out about any of this until I was 41 years old.

Intersex people like me — up to 1.7% of the population — are born with sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. I have androgen insensitivity syndrome. Because my body was resistant to androgens, including testosterone, in the womb, my natural hormones automatically converted into estrogen through a process called aromatization.

Intersex people have been the last bastion of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” with doctors commonly telling parents for many years that the best thing they could do for their children was to have surgery done, even when they are infants, so they can grow up “normal.”

These and other surgeries have been commonly performed on intersex children in the USA since the 1960s. But in the 1990s, intersex adults began speaking out against these non-consensual and medically unnecessary procedures because of their lifelong physical and psychological consequences.

Despite decades of controversy over the procedures, doctors continue to operate on children’s gonads, internal sex organs and genitals when the kids are too young to participate in the decision — even though the surgeries are dangerous and could be safely deferred. It’s rare that urgent health considerations require immediate surgical intervention. The results of these cosmetic surgeries are often catastrophic and the supposed benefits largely unproven.

As executive director of interACT, the nation’s only organization dedicated exclusively to protecting the legal and human rights of intersex youth, I am thrilled that since interACT’s founding in 2006, we have seen progress from medical associations — but not enough, and not nearly quickly enough.

It’s not time for more data collection or dialogue; it’s time for these surgeries to stop.

I know firsthand the devastating impact they can have, not just on our bodies but on our souls. We are erasedbefore we can even tell our doctors who we are. Every human rights organization that has considered this practice has condemned it, some even to the point of recognizing it as akin to torture.

We know that most physicians want to do the right thing for their patients, just as parents want to do the right thing for their children. The right thing, unequivocally, is to wait until an intersex person can participate in these life-altering decisions. The right thing is to afford them the same dignity and autonomy that is due to everyone — and refrain from inflicting irreversible harm solely because of a discomfort with difference.

The few doctors who refuse to bring their practices in line with human rights standards tell us there is a silent majority of patients who are happy they had their childhood surgeries, but they have been unable to produce those happy patients for us to talk to. We do hear from people who are extremely grateful they were spared surgery, as well as parents of intersex children who are growing up just fine without medical intervention.

Some doctors have dismissed us as “angry activists,” but our position has support from the United Nations, the World Health Organization, Amnesty International, the State Department, every major LGBTQ rightsorganization in the United States, three former U.S. surgeons general and almost every intersex organization in the world. Now, interACT and Human Rights Watch have published a new report echoing those calls for a ban.

These institutions are not just “angry activists.” They are principled human rights defenders drawing on data, laws and the medical ethics concept of “do no harm.”

Most important, intersex children and adults are telling us that they want the freedom to make decisions about their own lives and bodies.

Working with intersex youth every day, I can tell you these kids are perfect as they are — and they are telling us that their bodies aren't shameful and don’t need to be “fixed.”

Kimberly Mascott Zieselman is executive director of interACT, an organization that advocates for intersex youth.
 
Yes I'm aware that a twelve year old child may not be able to fully comprehend all the issues involved but it's still their body and they are the one who will have to live with whatever the outcome is.
By that, they should be able to get tattoos too. If not...
 
My favoured reference point comes back in to play again - It'd be arguably a purer want for a kid that requested the amputation of a healthy limb(s), or a section(s) of, compared to a want for surgeries consistent with a "sex" change. Reason being, there's not a hell of a lot in society to externally convince a kid that amputation will make them feel more (irony alert.....) complete.

My understanding of current medical knowledge is that there's nothing to suggest any difference between a kid wanting a healthy leg cut off, or their penis cut off. Make no bones about it (cough), that's what we're dealing with here. Adults are allowed to have their healthy limbs cut off, and allowed to cut their penises off. As should be the case. When the discussion turns to kids, limbs, penises. and etc. should be treated the same, so as to not diminish the plight of the "limb kids".

If it could be proven that any of those body modifications were necessary or markedly beneficial to a child (with pure science stuff, and not just "feelings"), then it would be terrible to deny them - but I don't think that that's where we are at.

*For this discussion "kid"/"child" is really code for "Not able to consent". I'm completely open to teenagers and younger being deemed able, and certain people 18+ being deemed not able.

@ryzno - I'm waiting for it...... "Allowed to cut healthy limbs off!! Y'all are crazy".
 
Last edited:
I just found this thread and I would like to share my views about gender. I'll admit it, I'm, probably not as educated about this topic as other members in here.

For the amount of genders, I think that there are only two (male, female), and there's no argument against it. I don't understand it in today's society, some people are actually getting triggered when it is said that only two genders exist. If you say that more than two genders exist, you are doing nothing less than going against medical research; science has literally proved that only two genders are in existence. I don't mean to offend anyone saying this, but if you think that you are a gender other than male or female (i.e. bigender, agender, pangender, etc), you aren't thinking properly and likely mentally ill. Even if you are born intersex, you can still identify as a male or female; research has proved that intersex is not it's own gender.

As for people who wish to transgender: adults should have (well, they do have) every right to transgender if they do not feel right as their assigned gender; the government should have no say in this. Under eighteens, however, should not be allowed to transgender. Why? Because the brain of a child hasn't fully developed yet. Just because a child doesn't feel right in their own body at a certain time doesn't always mean they will feel like this forever. Kids go through phases. The costs of gender transformation are extremely high; on average it costs a person $141,000 to change from male to female. If a kid doesn't like their new body, there's really nothing that could be done at that point because no parent would be willing to spend another 150k to undo the process. Also, transgender kids have a very high self-harm rate, while it is lower for adults and non-transgender kids.
 
Last edited:
Under eighteens, however, should not be allowed to transgender. Why? Because the brain of a child hasn't fully developed yet.
Does this mean that they can't make a reasonable decision? Setting the line at "fully developed" is safe because it's very conservative, but is it a truly accurate boundary? Different brain functions develop at different times. For example I happen to know that the concept of separate minds (the realization that things that you know are not necessarily known by everyone) happens at around age 3-5 if I recall. Children won't tells lies before this age because they don't know that they can deceive.

What is necessary to make a rational decision on body modification, and when does it develop in the brain? I think this is a good question to ask.


Just because a child doesn't feel right in their own body at a certain time doesn't always mean they will feel like this forever. Kids go through phases.
Some do, some don't. Even if it's true for many, that doesn't make it true for everyone. I don't like the idea of ignoring those people who just happen to be part of the less common group.

The costs of gender transformation are extremely high; on average it costs a person $141,000 to change from male to female. If a kid doesn't like their new body, there's really nothing that could be done at that point because no parent would be willing to spend another 150k to undo the process.
The financial impact will vary from case to case. I personally find the bigger issues to be irreversible changes and the desire to change in the first place. At least the cost part can be put into clear numbers.


Also, transgender kids have a very high self-harm rate, while it is lower for adults and non-transgender kids.
All of them? Most of them? Some of them? What if we could separate out the fraction that suffers from self harm from those that don't and find out why people belong to each group? Or what if the transition has nothing to do with the self harm rate?
 
Nah, people are in a workplace and they're required to act a specific way. If they don't like it then they shouldn't do the job. This isn't about forcing the general public to do it.
Yeah, while the article seems to be misrepresenting the scope of the legislation (spot the media bias), it seems to be a customer service kind of thing. Whether or not the Assembly will pass it is another matter.
 
Last edited:
Clearly unconstitutional. This is compelled speech, the exact opposite of free speech.

It would be okay (legally anyway) for a private nursing home to have such a regulation but the government is way overstepping its bounds (again) in compelling peoples' word choices.
 
Is it illegal if someone calls me John or Juliet instead of Ricardo (my name)? Is he/she obliged to do it by law? If not, I don't get why not using a preferred pronoun would be.

Well well...
 
Is it illegal if someone calls me John or Juliet instead of Ricardo (my name)? Is he/she obliged to do it by law? If not, I don't get why not using a preferred pronoun would be.

Well well...
Because those two things are the opposite of each other?
 
Because those two things are the opposite of each other?

I know that. What I'm wondering is if someone would go to jail if he called someone Mary or Peter if he's called John, for example.

Are you (in the US) compelled by law to treat people by their officially recognized name?

I'm asking because I don't know. I don't like this compelled speech trend either.
 
Nah, people are in a workplace and they're required to act a specific way. If they don't like it then they shouldn't do the job. This isn't about forcing the general public to do it.

Yeah, while the article seems to be misrepresenting the scope of the legislation (spot the media bias), it seems to be a customer service kind of thing. Whether or not the Assembly will pass it is another matter.

If the workplace is government, it's fine. If the workplace is privately owned, it's unconstitutional.
 
I do wonder if a lot of trans people people realise that most people don't have an issue with someone wanted to be whatever gender they want and self-mutilate however they want, but we have a problem with being told that were supposed to accept and buy into all of this unconditionally.
 
If the workplace is government, it's fine. If the workplace is privately owned, it's unconstitutional.
According to the article the legislation affects all homes covered by the California Health & Safety Code. Presumably any facilities which are non signatories to the code are exempt, although whether Cali officials would let them operate is another matter I'd guess.

I do wonder if a lot of trans people people realise that most people don't have an issue with someone wanted to be whatever gender they want and self-mutilate however they want, but we have a problem with being told that were supposed to accept and buy into all of this unconditionally.
It's not unconditional. First you have to work at a Cali-approved care home as detailed above.
 
According to the article the legislation affects all homes covered by the California Health & Safety Code. Presumably any facilities which are non signatories to the code are exempt, although whether Cali officials would let them operate is another matter I'd guess.

It's not unconditional. First you have to work at a Cali-approved care home as detailed above.

What does the california health and safety code have to do with it? I'm not seeing the connection.
 
What does the california health and safety code have to do with it? I'm not seeing the connection.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted the article but this is what it says:

Daily Caller
The law is currently limited in its effects to nursing homes and intermediate-care facilities, but if passed, those who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” could be slapped with a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison, according to the California Heath and Safety code. The state senate passed the bill 26-12 at the end of May. Since then, the Assembly Judiciary committee recommended the bill unanimously and the General Assembly held its first hearing on the legislation Wednesday.

You're free to reinterpret the above passage as you see fit as I've no axe to grind on anyone's behalf.
 
Perhaps I've misinterpreted the article but this is what it says:

You're free to reinterpret the above passage as you see fit as I've no axe to grind on anyone's behalf.

The California health and safety code also has to abide by the constitution.
 
The California health and safety code also has to abide by the constitution.
Then I presumed wrongly above (having no knowledge of the US constitution) and the bill shouldn't have been passed by the Assembly and should be able to be easily challenged in a court of law if the article is correct.
 
Then I presumed wrongly above (having no knowledge of the US constitution) and the bill shouldn't have been passed by the Assembly and should be able to be easily challenged in a court of law if the article is correct.

...which you'd think would almost never happen in the US, and which happens all the time. Legislators (state and federal) have very little regard for whether their laws are constitutional, and seem to be perfectly willing to ignore it, preferring to let someone go to the expense of challenging it all the way up to the supreme court.

To me, this should be grounds for impeachment and removal of office. Any legislation which clearly runs against the constitution which is later found to be unconstitutional by the courts should be a permanent black mark on the career of any legislator. It's not though, those people get re-elected.
 
Obviously jailtime seems a little excessive (and that fine/jailtime looks like it's for breaching any part of the elderly care act bill).

However if it's deliberate and repeated 'mis-gendering', couldn't it be considered harrassment in the same way that repeatedly calling someone racial, sexist or homophobic slurs could be?
 
Obviously jailtime seems a little excessive (and that fine/jailtime looks like it's for breaching any part of the elderly care act bill).

However if it's deliberate and repeated 'mis-gendering', couldn't it be considered harrassment in the same way that repeatedly calling someone racial, sexist or homophobic slurs could be?

What if the trans person "prefers" some weird, invented pronouns today and another one next week? Should everyone who deals with that person be compelled by law to use whatever he/she/they/zey/ad infinitum happens to identify as?

___

Does the law say anything about the pronouns themselves? Does it apply to only "he" and "she"? Or can anyone go to jail for tumblr pronouns?

Another question is: how can someone go to jail by not using a pronoun like "he" or "she" if these words are only used if you're not talking directly with the person? If you're talking with a trans person face to face you'll call him/her by his/her name, right? You'd go to jail because you're using the "wrong" pronouns while talking with someone else other than the "offended"... O.o

Everyone is free to hate other people, right? Imagine if a racist guy talks with someone about how he hates some other guy of another race... surely he can't be condemned by hate-speech because he's not affecting directly the target of his statements. If he talks with the guy he hates but doesn't spew his hate while doing it, surely that's OK. I mean, wouldn't be a pleasant conversation I guess, but far from illegal.
 
Last edited:
Back