Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[Ziggurat]

The word "normal" is meaningless, in the context of the range of human sexual and gender expression.

That is an ideologically-derived belief, not a rational evidence-based conclusion.

 

[ehcks]

The word "normal" is meaningless, in the context of the range of human sexual and gender expression.

There is an inferred difference between rarity and normalcy. A four-leaf clover is rare. It is not abnormal.

A transsexual is similarly rare, but still normal.

 

[catsmate]

There is an inferred difference between rarity and normalcy. A four-leaf clover is rare. It is not abnormal.

A transsexual is similarly rare, but still normal.

Yep. I prefer the analogy of eye colour; it's a spectrum and transfolk are like people with different eye colours.

 

[Corsair 115]

Here's the question. If you say that there is a "Normal" height, what is it?

One can use the median or average height of the population. Or if one prefers a range of heights, then that range of heights which includes a significant or large majority of the population total—for example, 75% or 90%.

Who's being oppressed?

You tell us, since you were the one who said the following in response to d4m10n:

Social and political equality of the sexes.

It's a nice dream but there are a lot of USAians who'll need to be dragged kicking and screaming along with progress.

Yep. I prefer the analogy of eye colour; it's a spectrum and transfolk are like people with different eye colours.

'Spectrum' does not mean all possibilities have a roughly equal chance of occurring. Sometimes, certain outcomes occur vastly less often than others. Such is the csse with transgender persons—they account for roughly 0.5% of the U.S. population. 0.5% is a very tiny slice of the 'spectrum'.

You think this wasn't true of the majority back in the days of toilet apartheid?

Of course not. I'm confused why you would even ask me the question, given the general and non-time specific nature of my statement.

 

[arthwollipot]

That is an ideologically-derived belief, not a rational evidence-based conclusion.

As I have just gone to great lengths to explain in another thread, unless you are using it in the context of mathematical statistics, the word "normal" inherently contains a value judgement.

Look at the synonyms and antonyms for the word. Synonyms include "natural", "orderly", "regular", "typical", "conventional", "popular" - all positive words. Antonyms include "abnormal", "disorderly", "irregular", "extreme", "irrational", "odd", "strange" - all negative words.

By referring to some parts of the population as "normal" you are contributing to the outgrouping and marginalisation of the other parts.

 

[Molinaro]

No. How can being so conflicted with your own body ever be anything other than sub-optimal? Why would you even want to try to make that optimal? You're not simply talking about accommodating people who have a problem, you're talking about making the problem be desirable. Why would you do that? HOW could you do that?

The situation they are in is not a problem. That's the whole point. It's what comes natural to them.

You and your way of thinking is the source of all problems related to the issue.

 

[Fudbucker]

The situation they are in is not a problem. That's the whole point. It's what comes natural to them.

You and your way of thinking is the source of all problems related to the issue.

This reminds me of deaf people who oppose implants for their deaf children.

Of course it's a problem when you don't identify with your biological gender, for all the reasons Ziggurat stated. No sane parent would wish that on their kids. That doesn't mean we don't accommodate such people, but don't pretend gender dysphoria is normal, or some desired outcome of procreation.

I hate it when liberals think every biological outcome is just a spectrum of the rainbow of humanity. It makes it hard for others to take us seriously. Being born blind sucks. Being born deaf sucks. So do birth defects, Down's Syndrome, and having the feeling you're a guy trapped in a girl's body.

 

[Molinaro]

This reminds me of deaf people who oppose implants for their deaf children.

Of course it's a problem when you don't identify with your biological gender, for all the reasons Ziggurat stated. No sane parent would wish that on their kids. That doesn't mean we don't accommodate such people, but don't pretend gender dysphoria is normal, or some desired outcome of procreation.

I hate it when liberals think every biological outcome is just a spectrum of the rainbow of humanity. It makes it hard for others to take us seriously. Being born blind sucks. Being born deaf sucks. So do birth defects, Down's Syndrome, and having the feeling you're a guy trapped in a girl's body.

I don't share your hideously bigoted view. And neither do the differently abled people that I have been close to throughout my life.

The only meaningful non-normality is how they are treated and talked about.

 

[quadraginta]

The word "normal" is meaningless, in the context of the range of human sexual and gender expression.

Not so much meaning less as it is a moving target.

There is an inferred difference between rarity and normalcy. A four-leaf clover is rare. It is not abnormal.

A transsexual is similarly rare, but still normal.

And this is an example. "Normal" as benign. Other uses are less so. Intentionally so.

It seems to get "inferred" as a lot of things, some exclusionary, some not so much, some meant as code for bigotry.

The problem is that without setting strict definitions (and sometimes even with them) the person applying the term can always claim a different inference when the need is felt to back away when the intended inference generates a backlash.

"That isn't what I meant."

"That's not what 'normal' means."

And that leads us into the various uses/inferences of "abnormal".

What fun.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't share your hideously bigoted view. And neither do the differently abled people that I have been close to throughout my life.

The only meaningful non-normality is how they are treated and talked about.

Spare me. You and I both know if they found a gene for gender dysphoria, and designer babies became a thing, no parent would allow their kid to be born with it.

I have panic disorder (yes, DISorder). It's a DISability. I'm not "differently abled" because I can't leave the house sometimes. It sucks. It limits the things I can do. I've learned to live with it, and I've been on meds for 20 years, and I worried like crazy my kid would inherit it from me and thank god he didn't.

Schizophrenia also runs in my family, and I guess I'm bigoted for not wanting my son to come down with it in his 20's. But what a wonderful "differently abled" life he would lead, if he gets it, am I right?

 

[Pup]

I don't share your hideously bigoted view. And neither do the differently abled people that I have been close to throughout my life.

The only meaningful non-normality is how they are treated and talked about.

One difference is that the very heart of a transgendered person's disability is wanting to be normal. It's why they call it gender dysphoria. A deaf person could be satisfied being deaf, a gay person could be satisfied being gay if only he weren't bullied about it, but a transgendered person isn't going to be satisfied living in the "wrong" body, even if it's a perfectly good body.

Acceptance may lead to better, earlier recognition of the problem and less bullying during transition, but it's my understanding that in the end, the ideal is not to be a socially accepted transgendered person, but a socially accepted woman (or man).

 

[Ziggurat]

The situation they are in is not a problem.

Of course it's a problem. That's why they seek treatment, that's why they seek surgery: to FIX the problem. I do not say they are wrong to do so, but when you fix a problem, that doesn't mean there never was a problem.

It's what comes natural to them.

Lots of natural things are a problem.

You and your way of thinking is the source of all problems related to the issue.

You obviously don't even understand my thinking.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Still no actual argument, just whining that I'm not being PC.

But for the record, I never said that they are a problem, I said they have a problem. People who are near-sighted also have a problem. It's not wrong to say this.

Again, you are saying that transexuality is a problem. This is a bigoted statement. But, I guess I can forgive you since you have the problem of being conservative.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, you are saying that transexuality is a problem. This is a bigoted statement. But, I guess I can forgive you since you have the problem of being conservative.

Still no argument, merely an accusation. You contribute nothing.

 

[Belz...]

So being transgender is like a defect of a faculty?

In a way. It doesn't de-value the person, but it sure isn't a fully-functioning configuration.

Because the implication is that everyone in the LGBT community are sexual predators. This bathroom bill is just another attempt to demonize the LGBT community.

Yeah, it's the standard subtext for all sex-related minorities. They're deviants and they want to convert your children to their sick, sick sexual rituals!

 

[luchog]

In a way. It doesn't de-value the person, but it sure isn't a fully-functioning configuration.

For some of us, I would have to agree with that. Transexuality in particular can be likened to dealing with physical defects. Being born in the "wrong body" can be just a personally difficult, if not devastating, as being born with disfiguring or crippling physical deformities. There is simply no way to adequately explain to someone who hasn't experienced it just what that's like.

But not all transpeople feel that way. Some simple don't feel that closely tied enough to their physical sex for it to matter.

Then there is the problem of socio-cultural pressure. A binary view of sex and gender is strongly enforced by most western cultures. People are forced to fit decisively into one or the other. Transpeople are told constantly that they have to be one or the other. And not only that, but that, like everyone else, they have to fit into a specific set of strictures on gender roles, appearance, and behaviour. This directly violates the personal identity of many transgender people. Some are happy with it, and comfortable fitting into a particular role, but many more see themselves as beyond all the cultural baggage, as something that fails to fit into a straightjacket of binary identity demanded by the mainstream culture.

 

[Belz...]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the percentage of people who identify as trans.

0.3%, unless you have different numbers.

But I'm willing to say that you and many others actually know far more transpeople than you think you do.

That's entirely possible, but I doubt it. I'd be more willing to consider it if I lived in a different city, or in a different part of mine.

purely arbitrary male-female dichotomy.

Please stop that. You're sounding like an SJW. It IS a dichotomy. It's just that a very small number of individuals don't quite match; it's just one of so many potential genetic (I presume it's genetic) variations within the population.

Being born in the "wrong body" can be just a personally difficult, if not devastating, as being born with disfiguring or crippling physical deformities. There is simply no way to adequately explain to someone who hasn't experienced it just what that's like.

I'm sure that's true and they have my sympathy.

But my post was about the biological issue. From an evolutionary standpoint and for a species like humans, it wouldn't make too much sense to have individuals incapable of passing on their genes (unlike, say, bees). It stands to reason that transgenderism (is that even a word?) is akin to a genetic defect, like being born blind or albino. Again, this isn't a value judgment but merely a descriptive one; and I'm sorry that some people can't tell the difference, but talking about one isn't talking about the other.

Just clarifying what I meant.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course it is. You are inflating the statistical importance of a tiny minority.

And you are marginalising and outgrouping that minority by ignoring their concerns. At best that is discrimination, and at worst, bigotry.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It IS a dichotomy. It's just that a very small number of individuals don't quite match

Ahh, so it's a dichotomy, except when it isn't. Cool.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suspect that the membership of this message board leans quite a bit toward people whose social groups are more open, cosmopolitan, and non-judgemental.

Don't kid yourself. The members of this board are very judgmental. They are merely jugmental about different things.