Transgender man gives birth

[cullennz]

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



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.

I didn't bring it up.

If you bothered to read I was answering the person who DID bring it up.

And I also said the op' is a choice. Which you would also have seen if you bothered to read rather than mislead

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Roboramma]

I didn't bring it up.

If you bothered to read I was answering the person who DID bring it up.

And I also said the op' is a choice. Which you would also have seen if you bothered to read rather than mislead

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

No one made a comparison between slavery and transgendered people not being able to live as their chosen* gender.

Someone said that sometimes compromise isn't an option and when asked for examples of that he mentioned slavery (among other things). That seems quite reasonable to me. This was simply to defend that idea that it is ever the case that compromise isn't an option.

If the discussion were actually reasonable the next step would have been to go on to the question of transgender specifically, but instead Dragonlady jumped on him for having the audacity to mention slavery in the same breath as transgender, and the discussion went off the rails there.

You jumped on that derailed train, and now here we are.

*ETA that's probably a bad choice of words. Mainly it was in my mind because it's actually part of the topic of discussion, specifically it's suggested that they don't have a choice in the matter. Though as zooterkin pointed out they do have some choice about what to do about it, their feelings of gender dysphoria seem to be out of their control, and out of the reach of any medical interventions as well.

 

[tyr_13]

*ETA that's probably a bad choice of words. Mainly it was in my mind because it's actually part of the topic of discussion, specifically it's suggested that they don't have a choice in the matter. Though as zooterkin pointed out they do have some choice about what to do about it, their feelings of gender dysphoria seem to be out of their control, and out of the reach of any medical interventions as well.

There is a treatment that has been shown to be almost completely effective at mitigating most of the problems (and eliminating the largest problem) though. Some other people just don't like it.

It still bothers me that those opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender have just ignored the actual scientific understanding of the topic to focus on appeals to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics.

 

[Roboramma]

There is a treatment that has been shown to be almost completely effective at mitigating most of the problems (and eliminating the largest problem) though. Some other people just don't like it.

That's a fair point. I guess I was suggesting that there is no known medical intervention that will make someone who feels she is a woman comfortable living as a man.

That isn't to suggest that if such a treatment existed anyone would be obliged to avail themselves of it, only that such a treatment doesn't exist.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It still bothers me that those opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender have just ignored the actual scientific understanding of the topic to focus on appeals to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics.

All the while claiming that they are the ones being rational and scientific about it, and accusing everyone else of holding ideology and feelings to be more important than truth.
Quite ironic.

 

[GlennB]

It still bothers me that those opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender have just ignored the actual scientific understanding of the topic to focus on appeals to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics.

Another absolutist remark that just uses the highlighted word as if it's incapable of nuance. What about "opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender" in some circumstances, but not others?

An example: if a transgender woman who has a biologically male body applies to enter a women's sports event, is opposition to that "an appeal to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics", or does it simply recognise that the male body might offer an unfair advantage?

 

[zooterkin]

Another absolutist remark that just uses the highlighted word as if it's incapable of nuance. What about "opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender" in some circumstances, but not others?

An example: if a transgender woman who has a biologically male body applies to enter a women's sports event, is opposition to that "an appeal to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics", or does it simply recognise that the male body might offer an unfair advantage?

Indeed; see the ongoing situation of Caster Semenya; not transgender, but an example showing that male and female are perhaps better viewed as a continuum rather than a strict binary division. Given that the physical distinction is not always clear, why should something more complicated, the way our brains perceive our bodies and gender identification, be any more clear?

 

[Cavemonster]

Another absolutist remark that just uses the highlighted word as if it's incapable of nuance. What about "opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender" in some circumstances, but not others?

An example: if a transgender woman who has a biologically male body applies to enter a women's sports event, is opposition to that "an appeal to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics", or does it simply recognise that the male body might offer an unfair advantage?

That seems to be a very uncharitable reading of tyr_13's position, one that puts a lot of words in his mouth that weren't written.

The principle of charity isn't just about being nice. It also helps us to avoid waging wars against straw people which is a waste of time for anyone who is actually interested in the truth.

 

[GlennB]

That seems to be a very uncharitable reading of tyr_13's position, one that puts a lot of words in his mouth that weren't written.

Fair enough, let's take it apart:

"It still bothers me that those opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender ..."

Where's the nuance there, the shades of grey? It speaks only of 'opposing' and self-identification. Is that all there is to say on the subject?

"... have just ignored the actual scientific understanding of the topic ..."

I see no reference there to some transgender people (for example) retaining their original physical characteristics, ones that might need to be considered in some circumstances (the sports event, the shower room?) In fact true "scientific understanding" might lead one to reject an automatic conferring of rights purely on the basis of gender self-identification.

" ... to focus on appeals to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics. "

Poisoning the well, whereby any discussion of tricky detail can be hand-waved away. To labour the point - separation of sports events into male/female groups is what in tyr_13's system? Fear? Incorrect semantics? No, it's tradition, but it's a tradition that has its roots in common sense. Without that almost invariable segregation there would be precious little room for women in sport at all.

 

[Cavemonster]

Fair enough, let's take it apart:


Where's the nuance there, the shades of grey? It speaks only of 'opposing' and self-identification. Is that all there is to say on the subject?

I mean, not every short comment is going to contain every nuance of a person's belief. That would make posting most things prohibitively difficult if you had to erect a bulwark against every possible misinterpretation.

 

[Roboramma]

I mean, not every short comment is going to contain every nuance of a person's belief. That would make posting most things prohibitively difficult if you had to erect a bulwark against every possible misinterpretation.

Exactly. In Steven Pinker's newest book The Sense of Style, he actually makes a good case that we shouldn't write in that way.

There are cases where "opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender " is unjustified. Perhaps we can assume that tyr_13 was talking about those cases.

We might think, well, wait, maybe he's talking about all cases. If you are thinking that he might be, the best thing to do at that point is to ask him.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I mean, not every short comment is going to contain every nuance of a person's belief. That would make posting most things prohibitively difficult if you had to erect a bulwark against every possible misinterpretation.

There is a growing pool of people I avoid like the plague because it's always 10 minutes of swatting away a dozen vague insinuations before they are (provisionally) satisfied that the plain, benign reading is the likely intention.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[tyr_13]

Another absolutist remark that just uses the highlighted word as if it's incapable of nuance. What about "opposing treating transgender people as their identified gender" in some circumstances, but not others?

An example: if a transgender woman who has a biologically male body applies to enter a women's sports event, is opposition to that "an appeal to traditions, fear, and incorrect semantics", or does it simply recognise that the male body might offer an unfair advantage?

I was specifically talking about those posting here (as in in this thread) opposed to treating them as their identified gender (or just acknowledging they don't fit with either of the traditional ones, for even more nuance left out of my short statement) in general or in most cases (or believing it's polite to point out conditions the other person is sure to know they have).

There are a few specific circumstances where it's justified to not treat them as the gender many of their body systems are telling them they are, but they're actually fewer than many people realize. Your example of sports is one where there is actually more than a bit of disagreement in the community. Mine is that there are many medical conditions that prevent people from competing at the highest levels of sport or even in local competition, (I have moronically strong legs and have leg pressed north of 1000lbs on five reps without especially training legs, but I have bad joints) and sadly having a body that doesn't conform to the different brackets should probably be one of them. As you point out, the fact that transwomen would generally have an overwhelming advantage is a problem. At some point that line becomes blurry though. Do we bar biological women who have conditions that let them build muscle like men, even if their skeletal disadvantage remains?

One that was brought up earlier and seems to come up often as a time it's reasonable not to treat transgender people as their identified gender is with sex, but that's actually not the case. Not wanting to have sex with a specific person isn't not* treating them as their gender. Not wanting to have sex with a specific woman doesn't make her any less of a woman.

Another valid example would obviously be with some sex-specific medical issues.

Any case where it's claimed it's more reasonable to treat them as their sex rather than their gender has to stand on it's merits, and many of those instances rely on understanding what the science has told us about transgender people. Anyone basing their analysis of these claims on such misconceptions as 'it's just feelings' is going to have massive flaws in that analysis. As I said before, that those most opposed to treating people as their gender have displayed no interest in the best scientific understanding of the issue is aggravating, but also very telling. Some might have come to the generally correct conclusion using the wrong or incomplete understanding, but others are coming to what I contend are wrong conclusions based on wrong or incomplete understandings.

*Note the intentional double negative.

 

[cullennz]

I was specifically talking about those posting here (as in in this thread) opposed to treating them as their identified gender (or just acknowledging they don't fit with either of the traditional ones, for even more nuance left out of my short statement) in general or in most cases (or believing it's polite to point out conditions the other person is sure to know they have).

There are a few specific circumstances where it's justified to not treat them as the gender many of their body systems are telling them they are, but they're actually fewer than many people realize. Your example of sports is one where there is actually more than a bit of disagreement in the community. Mine is that there are many medical conditions that prevent people from competing at the highest levels of sport or even in local competition, (I have moronically strong legs and have leg pressed north of 1000lbs on five reps without especially training legs, but I have bad joints) and sadly having a body that doesn't conform to the different brackets should probably be one of them. As you point out, the fact that transwomen would generally have an overwhelming advantage is a problem. At some point that line becomes blurry though. Do we bar biological women who have conditions that let them build muscle like men, even if their skeletal disadvantage remains?

One that was brought up earlier and seems to come up often as a time it's reasonable not to treat transgender people as their identified gender is with sex, but that's actually not the case. Not wanting to have sex with a specific person isn't not* treating them as their gender. Not wanting to have sex with a specific woman doesn't make her any less of a woman.

Another valid example would obviously be with some sex-specific medical issues.

Any case where it's claimed it's more reasonable to treat them as their sex rather than their gender has to stand on it's merits, and many of those instances rely on understanding what the science has told us about transgender people. Anyone basing their analysis of these claims on such misconceptions as 'it's just feelings' is going to have massive flaws in that analysis. As I said before, that those most opposed to treating people as their gender have displayed no interest in the best scientific understanding of the issue is aggravating, but also very telling. Some might have come to the generally correct conclusion using the wrong or incomplete understanding, but others are coming to what I contend are wrong conclusions based on wrong or incomplete understandings.

*Note the intentional double negative.

No offence, but I think you are expecting every Joe Bloggs to think about it as deeply as people on here do.

I think your average punter just have whatever basic reaction they have and you can't really expect them to have much else.

Probably didn't explain that very well

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Brainster]

California moves to criminalize those who refuse to use the preferred gender:

A California bill — passed by the state senate and recommended for passage by an assembly committee — would authorize jail for nursing home staff who “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns”:

Apparently there has been a terrible outbreak of transphobia among nursing home staff in the Golden State. Or, you know, by currently limiting the potential for jail to a very few (and making the purported victims very sympathetic), it's a way of getting the camel's nose under the tent.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Oh no, what's next, they can't call their black patients 'boy' anymore?

 

[Brainster]

Oh no, what's next, they can't call their black patients 'boy' anymore?

I assume that one's already passed. But what's the big deal? I mean, it's only Freedom of Speech, and nursing home attendants certainly do not deserve it.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

There's freedom of speech, and then there's professional conduct.
I'd oppose a law that tried to keep them from speaking out at all, but not being allowed to bully elderly people in the nursing home where they live (and can't leave), while they're getting paid to care for said elderly people?

I don't think that's a clear-cut case of 'just free speech'.

 

[paulhutch]

There's freedom of speech, and then there's professional conduct.
I'd oppose a law that tried to keep them from speaking out at all, but not being allowed to bully elderly people in the nursing home where they live (and can't leave), while they're getting paid to care for said elderly people?

I don't think that's a clear-cut case of 'just free speech'.

Absolutley! Brainster's outrage is completely ridiculous. Nursing Homes are heavily regulated facilities due to the potential for, and far too many past instances of, patient abuse. Staff can easily inflect an large amount of physiological damage on residents with just speech.

 

[paulhutch]

Absolutley! Brainster's outrage is completely ridiculous. Nursing Homes are heavily regulated facilities due to the potential for, and far too many past instances of, patient abuse. Staff can easily inflect an large amount of physiological psychological damage on residents with just speech.

Fixed that for me I should have looked closer at the spell check fix, Doh!