• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transgender man gives birth

Hercules56 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4747200/amp/Transgender-man-gives-birth-son.html

Woman feels she is really a man.

Woman gets surgery, takes hormones, and lives like a man.

Now a transgender Man, "he" gets pregnant and gives birth to a healthy baby.

Someone please explain to me why I should be required to call this person a "man", even though "he" has become pregnant and gave birth to a child.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's more germane for you to say why you should care. What, in your world, would crumble if you call a person what he prefers.
 
bruto said:
Perhaps it's more germane for you to say why you should care. What, in your world, would crumble if you call a person what he prefers.
Click to expand...

The Constitution protects Freedom of Speech.

It does not protect persons from feeling offended.
 
bruto said:
Perhaps it's more germane for you to say why you should care. What, in your world, would crumble if you call a person what he prefers.
Click to expand...

I should not face a $125,000 fine for identifying someone by the gender listed on their birth certificate.
 
As I mentioned above, I believe if someone gets sexually reassigned or dresses as a gender different than their birth gender, and prefers to be called "he" instead of "she" or vice-versa, it would be nice if we all obliged and went on our way.

If someone refuses, I don't think it's the end of the world, and I definitely don't think it should be illegal or a fineable offense.

But, nowadays, we have all of these stupid new pronouns (xe, per, etc.) and they all have stupid new plural forms and stupid new possessive forms, and even some other stupid forms as well. It is as if The Onion has become reality.

One also has to question the motivations of the people who are inventing these pronouns.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Calling someone a faggot is not the same as calling someone "sir".

I understand this issue is of significant emotional importance to you, but you cannot order me under penalty of $125,000 to call a woman "sir".
Click to expand...

I'm not ordering you to do anything. I'm not fining you, I'm not even suggesting a fine is a good idea. I'm asking you to really think about why you have an issue with this.

My grandfather was born in 1914. He's a racist. During the civil rights struggle he repeatedly said that he'd never call a black person "sir", never shake one's hand, etc etc. My mother was born in 1944. She's not racist. She found her father's racism to be insane. Why would he be like that? Why can't he see that there's no sense in racism? she'd say. But you know what? She herself is homophobic. And she can't see the parallel. As unreasonable as she finds her father's notions, she still finds her own to be perfectly rational and thinks people are crazy to question her homophobia.

I think transgenderism is the current generation's thing like that. People my age tend to be non-racist, okay with the gays...but iffy on those weird transgender people. But that's the thing about blind spots--you can't see that they are blind spots. Future generations will look back on today's anti-transgenderism with the same bemusement (and contempt) that we look back on homophobic Baby Boomers and racist whatever you call people born during WWI. Flappers?

And as for "significant emotional importance" to me, it's not. I just wonder why people think they way they do about such things, and if they're willing to actually really think about their own way of thinking. Isn't that part of scepticism? Examining everything, even the things you believe? Especially the things you believe?

But I guess that's all just crazy ranting to you. Wild, emotional, irrational stuff. Rational people don't think about things or ask questions. They just act on instinct, and tradition. Right? That's what rationalism is.
 
Argumemnon said:
No, I just think you're using the mirror defense, here. Finding it ridiculous to call said hairy biker "madam" has nothing to do with one's feelings being hurt.
Click to expand...

I would cheerfully call that big hairy biker whatever they wanted me to call them, whether it be madam, sir, or Your Lordship. It causes me no grief whatsoever to do so.

Even if you don't like the idea, think of it this way: you have to call politicians "sir" or "ma'am" or "Mr. President" to their faces, and you're not going to stay long at Buckingham Palace if you keep referring to the Queen as "hey, Betty!"

So why not have some manners and call people what they wish to be called? It's funny that the people who most resent this are the ones who long for a return to the "Good Old Days" when polite manners were far more required in daily life.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm not ordering you to do anything. I'm not fining you, I'm not even suggesting a fine is a good idea. I'm asking you to really think about why you have an issue with this.

My grandfather was born in 1914. He's a racist. During the civil rights struggle he repeatedly said that he'd never call a black person "sir", never shake one's hand, etc etc. My mother was born in 1944. She's not racist. She found her father's racism to be insane. Why would he be like that? Why can't he see that there's no sense in racism? she'd say. But you know what? She herself is homophobic. And she can't see the parallel. As unreasonable as she finds her father's notions, she still finds her own to be perfectly rational and thinks people are crazy to question her homophobia.

I think transgenderism is the current generation's thing like that.
Click to expand...

I understand this is what you currently think.

But I disagree.

I think gender is hardwired into our DNA, biology and phenotype. We dont yet have the technology to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man.

The question is "if a man wants to be called a woman, should we call him a woman"?

I don't know if its right for me to impose my views on this issue on someone else, or vice-versa.

If someone refuses to identify a man as a woman unless a complete surgical procedure is done to remove all womanly organs and replace them with fully-functioning male organs, there is a scientific argument to be made for that.

However, I believe if one cannot find it themselves to call a transgender man "sir/he/him", he should then always refer to that person by their NAME.

And if the transgender person does not like this compromise, he/she can go **** himself.

The law should allow a boss or co-worker to always call someone "Jane" or "Susan" or "Sally" or "David" or "Michael" or "Steve", rather than a gender-identifying pronoun, without any penalty or charges of harrassment.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
I have read there are some municipalities that will charge you with sexual harrassment if you intentionally use the "wrong" pronoun when discussing a transgender employee or co-worker.
Click to expand...

I think you have read incorrectly.

However, there are some universities that might consider it whatever it is that they do in their student kangaroo courts, and of course companies might have policies that prohibit it.


Oh, and if you call that person who gave birth a man, then the terms man and woman have no meaning at all, whether or not one has good manners.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page#3.1

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Examples of Violations

Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page#4

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.





Thankfully I do not live in New York City.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I guess some of those people who went to those universities must have graduated.
 
As far as pronouns are concerned I have come up with a fair compromise.

Always call a transgender person by their NAME, if this is an issue for you.

Jake is always Jake. Not sir, he, him, etc. Always Jake.

Susan is always Susan. Not her, madam, ma'am, she, etc. Always Susan.


You can't be accused of bigotry for calling someone by their name.

You can't be called a sellout for calling someone by their name.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

:)
 
Hercules56 said:
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities ...
Click to expand...
What is a covered entity?

As far as the law is concerned, it seems to be rather "nannyish". I don't need that kind of protect, I think.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
What is a covered entity?
Click to expand...
Employers and agents thereof.

As far as the law is concerned, it seems to be rather "nannyish". I don't need that kind of protect, I think.
Click to expand...
It should first be said that there is no law against using the wrong pronoun--these are just guidelines issued by the NYCCHR as to how to comply with with the NYCHRL, which bars discrimination on the grounds of gender identity.

I don't see why it's remarkable to people that intentionally demeaning your employees (say, by insisting that they are not the gender they tell you they are) will lead to exactly the same kind of liabilities as demeaning your employees in violation of any other anti-discrimination measure. Call your female employees fat broads--what do you expect will happen?

The point here is that employers have a positive obligation to create non-discriminatory conditions of employment (that is, to avoid "hostile workplaces"). The main difference in NYC is that gender identity is a protected class, too.
 
Last edited:
According to this, there is an even more expensive penalty for " willful, wanton, or malicious conduct".

What is the lower fine for then? Accidentally saying the wrong thing more than once without malice?

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.
Click to expand...


Remember when the people against gay marriage said that it will be a slippery slope to a lot of other things, like people wanting to marry their dogs? The response to them was, "We just want the same legal rights as you have"

I'm pro gay marriage, but this stuff is getting ridiculous. Sounds like a bunch of lawyers trying to make a big deal where there isn't one, and winning.
 
deadrose said:
I would cheerfully call that big hairy biker whatever they wanted me to call them, whether it be madam, sir, or Your Lordship. It causes me no grief whatsoever to do so.
Click to expand...

From now on I want you to call me Emperor of the World every time you address me. See, I feel like the Emperor of the World and your silly objective reality has no dominion over me.

Even if you don't like the idea, think of it this way: you have to call politicians "sir" or "ma'am" or "Mr. President" to their faces
Click to expand...

I really don't.

So why not have some manners and call people what they wish to be called?
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.
 
Take people as you find them and treat them the way you'd want to be treated...or, perhaps better yet, treat them the way you'd want your beloved child to be treated it they were in the same situation. It's pretty hard to go wrong like that, and I highly doubt any municipality will attempt to fine you for it.
 
Babbylonian said:
Take people as you find them and treat them the way you'd want to be treated...or, perhaps better yet, treat them the way you'd want your beloved child to be treated it they were in the same situation.
Click to expand...

I'd like them to be treated to the truth. The truth doesn't have to be told in a way that hurts, but is it wrong of me to want my utterances to correspond to objective reality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom