Transgender Thread.

[TumeK5]

@Imari Funny enough, I was actually going to mention this very thing, but thought "nah, this is common info, right..."

Right?

 

[MatskiMonk]

That asking to be addressed with a plural is silly.

They/Them is how you would address someone you knew to be a person, but how you weren't gendering for whatever reason... like, if you were being pursued by an unknown assassin, and you had to explain to a random stranger whose help you needed, you'd say, "they're trying to kill me, we need to stop them". If you were citing the work of a scientist who's gender you didn't know, but who's name you did, the most linguistically frictionless way to refer to them is they.. like, Dr. Brown didn't know what the flux capacitor would do at 88.8mph and 1.21GW, but they supposed it would enable time travel...

I mean, you might choose to reword that to support your argument, but it's perfectly good English.

Also...

 

[TumeK5]

Also, it just occured to me, but there is a possible scenario where you know the person's name, but when talking to others about them you don't want to disclose their name for privacy's sake. Then you have to use some pronouns.



Notice how I used they/them when referring to a person in general? Isn't it neat?

 

[TexRex]

They/them is a strange way of being addressed because they aren't singular terms.

Sure they are. There's even a special name for when they are. Indefinite singular pronouns. They're called that because the subject isn't defined beyond as the singular. Turns out there are all kinds of pronouns depending on particular use that have nothing to do with gender non-conforming personal preference. But even in the case of gender non-conforming personal preference, why is it so triggering?

 

[ScottPuss20]

Yeah sorry about that, I must be half-asleep to not pick up on my logical fallacy😹

"I don't know who I'm dealing with but I'm going to find them"

I feel really stupid now.

 

[Scaff]

I can accept the existence of trans people.

But only if you can effectively pretend they don't exist.

But not when it destroys an existing brand

Then you should be annoyed at the marketing execs, not the people in the ad, who you may be shocked to hear, didn't actually create the concept of the ad. Oh, for the record, have a guess how much my 79 year old father (who is an absurd JLR fan - currently owns 1 x Jag and 5 x LR) is angry at trans-people for the new re-brand? That's right he didn't even mention it!

and is made out to be "normal" when it's not.

Citation required (oh and that right there is transphobia).

The people featured in the Jaguar ad are very few and far between in reality.

Fun game, let's take another community that is a similar size (in terms of percentage of world population) and imagine them being treated the same. Hi Australia, you now have to sit down and shut-up, @ScottPuss20 says that your too small a number to be included.

 

[UKMikey]

That's a relief. I won't have to change the signature on my posts after all.

 

[McLaren]

Yes!

The answer is actually, no.

I don't think you've fully grasped the personal, turnaround hypothetical Imari presented towards you. You are aware disability rights were born out of making noise, right? That they stemmed from the very civil rights movement Black people fought for?

The history of the disability rights movement is inseparable from the civil rights movement, both of which strive for equality, justice, and inclusion for marginalized communities. Inspired by the progress made by Black people in their fight against discrimination, the disability rights movement emerged to advocate for the specific needs of people with disabilities. Influenced by the civil rights movement, disability rights activists employed similar tactics, like sit-ins, to protest the unequal treatment of and lack of accessibility for people with disabilities.

Of the connection between the two movements, Disability Rights Michigan noted, “If it weren’t for the civil rights movement, the disability rights movement, and resulting civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities, would probably never have existed. The civil rights movement inspired individuals with disabilities to fight against segregation and for full inclusion under the law. Public institutions would often segregate or exclude people with disabilities from participation in public education, employment, or in using public services, such as public transportation. They took their cues for how to advocate for themselves from Black civil rights activists, many of whom had disabilities themselves.”

https://www.naacpldf.org/disability-rights-and-racial-justice/

I'm not going to engage in a debate over it, but I think Imari's post presented an interesting thought for you to re-consider because (without knowing the physical background of others here), you're actually in a position to empathize where the transgender community comes from when it comes to inclusion b/c you are part of a community of people who raised their voices & let it be known that their physical appearance made them no less of man-or-woman than others, & they did not deserve to be excluded from society because others felt they were an inconvenience, disruption, or hindrance to "normal" people's lives. And that just because things were created for your benefit over mine in every day life, does not mean I am now "forced" to accept that you are treated the way you want to be treated. Those "perks" created to make your life easier do not hinder mine in any way.

 

[ScottPuss20]

But only if you can effectively pretend they don't exist.

I do not pretend.

Then you should be annoyed at the marketing execs, not the people in the ad, who you may be shocked to hear, didn't actually create the concept of the ad. Oh, for the record, have a guess how much my 79 year old father (who is an absurd JLR fan - currently owns 1 x Jag and 5 x LR) is angry at trans-people for the new re-brand? That's right he didn't even mention it!

I am annoyed at the execs for doing something soo stupid and out of touch with reality.

Citation required (oh and that right there is transphobia).

It’s not transphobia, it’s a fact. They make up a small number of people on earth. I know that I’m not normal.

Fun game, let's take another community that is a similar size (in terms of percentage of world population) and imagine them being treated the same. Hi Australia, you now have to sit down and shut-up, @ScottPuss20 says that your too small a number to be included.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you maybe put it into context?

The answer is actually, no.

I don't think you've fully grasped the personal, turnaround hypothetical Imari presented towards you. You are aware disability rights were born out of making noise, right? That they stemmed from the very civil rights movement Black people fought for?

https://www.naacpldf.org/disability-rights-and-racial-justice/

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws. Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths. That is a much slipperier slope.

 

[Imari]

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

That's semantics. Protests and lobbying can equally be described as bullying if you disagree with the outcome. Functionally, the movements are the same. As are basically all movements for equality and fair treatment.

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths.

You can't say you're not a transphobe and say this.

No rational trans activist is trying to totally destroy the idea of biological gender. At best they want people to know that even biological gender is significantly more complicated than most people think it is. Maybe there's some loonies out there, but they're not the ones driving the movement.

What I think most trans people would like is for society to recognise that in the vast majority of gendered interactions, the idea of gender is based more on appearance and vibes than any physical truth. If someone feels more comfortable as a man, then let them be a man.

If someone who looks like a dude and is dressed like a dude walks into the dudes bathroom and goes into a stall to pee, how is that a problem for you exactly? You might get a fright when you peer over the top of the door and see that he doesn't have a cock? That seems like a you problem.

Now, you could describe that as destroying the idea of social gender if you wanted to be hyperbolic, and I think that would be just fine. There's a lot of stuff that's stereotypically male and female for no particularly good reason and the sooner people get those ideas out of their heads the better.

That is a much slipperier slope.

A slippery slope to what exactly? Allowing people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves?

Disabled activism required actual actions on the part of other people to accommodate disabled people. That was a good and fair thing, but even just physical disabled access is non-trivial in a lot of cases.

Trans people basically just ask that you treat them like another person. You don't have to do anything except not lose your rag and call them by their preferred names, just like you do for every other human that you've interacted with ever. There is no cost to you. You lose nothing. You are not required to go into the bathroom with them and hold their hand.

But the cost of absolutely nothing is apparently too high for you to pay when it comes to someone else's happiness. That tells us who you are, as a man.

 

[McLaren]

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

So, then you actually agree they should not have, "made too much of a fuss and disrupted other people's lives. Just be a quiet little disabled and stay in their line".

The movement for transgender rights is not far away; they too want accessibility & an easier life without discrimination b/c they are "different".

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths.

There literally people out there today who do not like the fact disabled people get perks as simple as dedicated parking spaces up front that the law protects through fines.

That is a much slipperier slope.

I remember gay rights being seen as a "slippery slope".

But, as said, I'm not going to debate you on this. I merely believe you should have given second thought to a comparison made involving your own life experience as a sign of some common ground, and you've apparently decided to glance over it with the belief that your community's journey was justified, but transgenderism isn't b/c of the words of a few, even though there were disabled rights activists also asking for things that could be as seen as "excessive" by today's standards.

In 1988, students at Gallaudet University, the only American university specifically for deaf students, led the "Deaf President Now" protest. Students made several demands, calling for a Deaf president and majority Deaf population on the Board of Trustees. This week-long protest resulted successfully in the appointment of deaf president, Dr. I. King Jordan. Their protest inspired inclusion and integration across communities.

Disability History: The Disability Rights Movement (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

You do you, mate.

 

[Scaff]

I do not pretend.

Yes you do, you clearly advocated for putting limits on the actions and speech of a minority group.

I am annoyed at the execs for doing something soo stupid and out of touch with reality.

Yet you blame trans individuals for that action.

It’s not transphobia, it’s a fact.

What is a 'fact', and be careful how to reply to ensure you are indeed stating a fact and not your opinion dressed up as fact.

They make up a small number of people on earth.

So do Australians, should we limit the rights of Australians for the same reason?

I know that I’m not normal.

Define normal.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you maybe put it into context?

I already have, I'm using two similar size groups to illustrate the absurdity of limiting rights based on the percentage of global population.

The goal of these movements was to increase accessibility for disabled people and give them an easier path through life. They did not bully others into submission, they protested and lobbied governments to change certain laws.

Through direct action, they did not meekly ask permission, they went out and demanded it, and you benefited from that direct action, yet you don't want the same route to be open to other minority groups.

Some of these gender activists want more than equal rights, they want to totally destroy biological truths. That is a much slipperier slope.

Oh boy, this is going to be fun. Go on then, what biological truths? Keep in mind that gender isn't biological (it's a social construct), and what I suspect you are referring to is biological sex (and I promise you that's not even close to as simple as you think it is).

 

[TumeK5]

From what I gather, this person has had a rather rough life, and thanks to how it has transpired so far, takes his misery out on other groups that are also suffering and struggling.

Some comedy writes itself.