Transgender man gives birth

[ponderingturtle]

Okay.

Do you want to expand upon that?

What compromises do you think there should be between Nazi's and anti fascits? Sometimes someone is just wrong.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I

I'm not sure you realize just how much some people do not want to see the body parts of the opposite sex, or do not want their children to. I don't always agree with their hard boundaries, but I do try to respect them. Once again, transgendered individuals want their lifestyles to be respected, but so does every one else, and sometimes the two are mutually exclusive with no real compromise possible.

.

I entirely understand. People will be upset. I'm just not sure if that is enough to justify enforced segregation.

My mind replaces it with people not wanting their kids to see gays hold hands or an interracial couple kiss. Or asking a burn victim or breastfeeding mother to leave because they are making people uncomfortable.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Sorry to cherry pick, post and run, but just wanna answer this real quick between chores in RL.

I don't think being transgendered makes someone dangerous.

However, I don't think being transgendered makes someone any more or less capable of being dangerous.

A dangerous person who becomes transgendered is still dangerous. I don't believe changing gender magically takes away any tendency toward violence, nor does it instill a violent disposition that wasn't there before.

Of course. They don't make a situation any more or less dangerous. They are just people like everyone else.

 

[sylvan8798]

Okay.

Do you want to expand upon that?

There was no compromise position on slavery, for example.

The "compromise" in Jim Crow days was separate facilities. But that was not acceptable. The answer (civil rights) certainly was not one that made everyone happy.

The compromise on gay marriage was civil unions, which also ended up not being acceptable. The answer (gay marriage legal) is not a compromise.

I see the transgender rights movement going the same direction - towards allowing transgender rights rather than taking them away. Some people are not going to be happy, but there isn't really an acceptable compromise position.

Frank question: Do you actually know any transgender people personally? Friends, acquaintances?

 

[DragonLady]

There was no compromise position on slavery, for example.

Seriously? You're going to compare the CHOICE of transgendered people to behave like they're the opposite of their biological sex to slavery?

Frank question: Do you actually know any transgender people personally? Friends, acquaintances?

I have already answered that. I'm not going to repeat myself any more.

I'm bowing out of this topic, as it's clear that reason, like Elvis, has left the building. I guess time will tell if either ever return.

I'll just go on record to say "This is a bad idea".

When teenage girls all over the country can't take a shower due to the flash mobs of boys in the locker rooms, I'd love to be the fly on the wall while you explain they're "confused" and "irrational" for not wanting to give an eyeful to every kid in school.

When men are forced to go outside behind the buildings, and every alley stinks because they're afraid to use the facilities because they don't want to see other men, be seen by other men, or accidentally scare a woman somehow, I might start snappin' pictures of the pee stains on our million-dollar buildings for my a blog or instagram.

All over the world there are people who still don't have toilets, and are forced to relieve themselves in ditches and fields. We call them "3rd world conditions" and lament their lack of privacy, safety and sanitation.

But instead of choosing to fight that cause, you want to spend just as much energy and time forcing people here to give those same hard won things up.

Have fun, folks.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Won't someone think of the children?

And we also have a 'people have it worse in the third world so why bother?'
And a 'allowing people to access toilets will make everyone pee in the streets because reasons'

And then storming out with righteous indignation.

I think I've got a bingo.

 

[uke2se]

Seriously? You're going to compare the CHOICE of transgendered people to behave like they're the opposite of their biological sex to slavery?

You seriously need to stop posting **** you don't know anything about. You obviously haven't done a modicum of research on this.

 

[cullennz]

You seriously need to stop posting **** you don't know anything about. You obviously haven't done a modicum of research on this.

Then could you expand on it.

Because I also personally find your comparison of a person who feels they are a different sex and then choses to become that sex, to forced deportation and a life of slavery, knowing you will never see anyone you know ever again and all the other disgusting realitys of what slaves went through, frankly laughable.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Cavemonster]

So for now, I'll just leave the updated version of the ol' M&M argument here:

Here's a bowl containing 1,000 M&M's; representing allowing both genders into every bathroom.

900 of them are harmless and normal female M&M's.
50 of them are harmless and normal male M&M's
30 of them are normal male M&M's with unknown motives
10 of them are normal male M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are normal female M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are harmless, cross dressed male M&M's
1 of them is a cross dressed male serial rapist.
1 of them is a harmless trans woman.

Now how many handfuls should our grand children have to eat in their lifetimes?

EDA: I've not made any effort to match these numbers to any actual statistics or demographics. They are just random, to help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

I'm going to take this opportunity to point out what's wrong with the ol' M&M argument.

So, of course, the general thought experiment isn't necessarily wrong on its surface. If we envision the risk of allowing "x" as a finite bowl of M&Ms, it seems pretty clear that we wouldn't eat one if 14 out of 1000 were harmful.

That's 1.4% if we're doing the math, and that's the problem with most applications of the M&M argument. They don't do the math. Like you, they pull numbers out of the air.

So what they're doing is comparing zero risk (eating no M&Ms) to some risk (In your case 1.4% chance of the poisoned M&M).

But in real life, we can't eliminate risks altogether. When you eat real and actual M&Ms, there is some non-zero chance that something has gone wrong with the manufacturing process and something dangerous is in that candy coating. The chance of that is very low, far far less than the 1.4% you're talking about in your bowl of 1000. So I'm willing to bet you take the chance. You eat M&Ms or drink coke, or eat vegetables even though occasionally a shipment of green beans is infected with salmonella.

You take risks when you cross the street. A crazy or distracted driver may come by at far over the speed limit.

We live every day weighing low risks and refusing to let them alter our behavior.

Anyone you get on an elevator with could be a serial killer. But you still get on elevators.

For any of these situations, we could imagine the risk as a small number of poisoned candies in an M&M bowl of the appropriate size.

So it becomes clear that it isn't the presence of poisoned candies that make taking handfuls a bad idea, because just about every single decision we make is a bowl with a few poisoned ones. What rationally would stop us from taking handfuls would be particular ratios of poisoned to safe in our bowls.

With that in mind, not doing the math, is refusing to evaluate that ratio. Making up random numbers is putting this case on a different footing than every other risk assessment you do every day.

The idea of visualizing risk as a bowl of candies with hidden poison isn't wrong. What's wrong is only apply that to certain risks, and failing to compare them to other risks that we all accept.

And if we do a fair comparison of risk levels, we don't really need the thought experiment. It really only serves as an appeal to emotion "This is a risk! Why take it". But of course that's a silly question. We trade off risks for benefits and freedoms all the time. What would actually make a case would be an evaluation that put some prevalence to that risk, some numbers. Anything short of that is purposefully or thoughtlessly, misrepresenting the way we process risk.

 

[uke2se]

Then could you expand on it.

Because I also personally find your comparison of a person who feels they are a different sex and then choses to become that sex, to forced deportation and a life of slavery, knowing you will never see anyone you know ever again and all the other disgusting realitys of what slaves went through, frankly laughable.

I took issue with the "choice" part. I have no desire to get dragged into a discussion about anything else.

 

[sylvan8798]

I'm going to take this opportunity to point out what's wrong with the ol' M&M argument.

So, of course, the general thought experiment isn't necessarily wrong on its surface. If we envision the risk of allowing "x" as a finite bowl of M&Ms, it seems pretty clear that we wouldn't eat one if 14 out of 1000 were harmful.

These arguments also use things like M&M's or Skittles in a situation where we could simply throw out the infected candy and get some more, or easily do without candy today. Many things we do have various degrees of risk but we do them as part of getting through life, not as frivolous indulgences.

Of course some of our frivolous indulgences have the greatest risks (extreme sports etc.)

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Seriously? You're going to compare the CHOICE of transgendered people to behave like they're the opposite of their biological sex to slavery?



I have already answered that. I'm not going to repeat myself any more.

I'm bowing out of this topic, as it's clear that reason, like Elvis, has left the building. I guess time will tell if either ever return.

I'll just go on record to say "This is a bad idea".

When teenage girls all over the country can't take a shower due to the flash mobs of boys in the locker rooms, I'd love to be the fly on the wall while you explain they're "confused" and "irrational" for not wanting to give an eyeful to every kid in school.

When men are forced to go outside behind the buildings, and every alley stinks because they're afraid to use the facilities because they don't want to see other men, be seen by other men, or accidentally scare a woman somehow, I might start snappin' pictures of the pee stains on our million-dollar buildings for my a blog or instagram.

All over the world there are people who still don't have toilets, and are forced to relieve themselves in ditches and fields. We call them "3rd world conditions" and lament their lack of privacy, safety and sanitation.

But instead of choosing to fight that cause, you want to spend just as much energy and time forcing people here to give those same hard won things up.

Have fun, folks.

That fact that you think it is a choice is the problem. You've already been told that sex and gender are different. Is being gay a choice too?

That entire post was basically the same as saying gay marriage will lead to legalised paedophilia and people marrying horses.

Vague unsupported nonsense that has nothing to do with the fact that TG people have always been in your bathroom and none of these things have happened.

TG people being banned from facilities will not make toilets appear in 3rd world countries. I don't even know what what was about

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Won't someone think of the children?

And we also have a 'people have it worse in the third world so why bother?'
And a 'allowing people to access toilets will make everyone pee in the streets because reasons'

And then storming out with righteous indignation.

I think I've got a bingo.

Your prize is a bag of M&Ms

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously? You're going to compare the CHOICE of transgendered people to behave like they're the opposite of their biological sex to slavery?

Just like being gay and interracial marriage. Those corrupting influences have already destroyed the children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then could you expand on it.

Because I also personally find your comparison of a person who feels they are a different sex and then choses to become that sex, to forced deportation and a life of slavery, knowing you will never see anyone you know ever again and all the other disgusting realitys of what slaves went through, frankly laughable.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

And how funny it is when they kill themselves. All over some silly choice.

 

[sylvan8798]

When teenage girls all over the country can't take a shower due to the flash mobs of boys in the locker rooms, I'd love to be the fly on the wall while you explain they're "confused" and "irrational" for not wanting to give an eyeful to every kid in school.

And flash mobs of girls in the boys locker rooms to ogle the football team.

When men are forced to go outside behind the buildings, and every alley stinks because they're afraid to use the facilities because they don't want to see other men, be seen by other men, or accidentally scare a woman somehow, I might start snappin' pictures of the pee stains on our million-dollar buildings for my a blog or instagram.

Suddenly men will be afraid of being seen by other men, because icky transgenders. Men use URINALS fgs.

All over the world there are people who still don't have toilets, and are forced to relieve themselves in ditches and fields. We call them "3rd world conditions" and lament their lack of privacy, safety and sanitation.

But instead of choosing to fight that cause, you want to spend just as much energy and time forcing people here to give those same hard won things up.

Have fun, folks.

Are you fighting the cause of 3rd world bathroom conditions? Or are you fighting the cause of "stop transgenderism, won't someone consider the children!!!"?

 

[cullennz]

And how funny it is when they kill themselves. All over some silly choice.

Could you please expand on how a TG who happens to have mental health issues that result in a their committing suicide, relates to slavery?

 

[zooterkin]

Could you please expand on how a TG who happens to have mental health issues that result in a their committing suicide, relates to slavery?

Well, I guess you could read the thread and see what was actually said. It wasn't a direct comparison with slavery, but was giving an example of a situation where compromise was not an option. That is not directly equating the situation of transgender people with slavery. Exception was taken to suggesting that transgender people are choosing to behave as they do. (It's an arguable point; some of their actions clearly are a choice, but the motivation for doing it is not some whim.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could you please expand on how a TG who happens to have mental health issues that result in a their committing suicide, relates to slavery?

As you brought it up unprompted in how am I supposed to know that?

Then could you expand on it.

Because I also personally find your comparison of a person who feels they are a different sex and then choses to become that sex, to forced deportation and a life of slavery, knowing you will never see anyone you know ever again and all the other disgusting realitys of what slaves went through, frankly laughable.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

So why did you bring up slavery in a talk about transgender issues and it being a choice? Clearly the abuse and pain suffered doesn't count as reasons behind why transgender people kill themselves a higher rates, so increasing their suffering isn't an issue.

This all despite the fact that it is shown that the more intolerant legislation there is correlates to a rise in suicide.

 

[GlennB]

Well, I guess you could read the thread and see what was actually said. It wasn't a direct comparison with slavery, but was giving an example of a situation where compromise was not an option. That is not directly equating the situation of transgender people with slavery. Exception was taken to suggesting that transgender people are choosing to behave as they do. (It's an arguable point; some of their actions clearly are a choice, but the motivation for doing it is not some whim.)

For my money that's where the discussion really fell apart. I don't think DragonLady was suggesting that gender self-identification was the "choice" being made, but more the social/behavioural one. For example a transgender woman with a biologically male body choosing to use the women's locker room and showers.

However, the reaction she got was as if she were questioning the right to be transgender at all, or suggesting that it was a choice. As so often happens here, the desire to dispute overcame the need to read carefully and even (gasp!) clarify what another poster means by their comments.