Hypothetical Transgender Scenario

[Dizchu]

"A person feels like having a penis instead of a vagina does not reflect who they are, they change that through artificial means" to "A person feels like having arms instead of flippers does not reflect who they are, they change that through artificial means" is not a slippery slope. Conceptually, they are exactly the same thing.

Once half of our species has flippers, then it'd be conceptually the same thing. You are equating genitalia with flippers. Again, it's like saying that now that gay people can marry, people will be marrying kids and animals. I mean, it's the logical conclusion right? You get rid of one single boundary and all of a sudden it's a free-for-all. Your biological sex doesn't match your gender identity, to such an extent that you live your life in absolute misery? That must be exactly the same as someone wanting wings or gills or something, right?

 

[Something Amyss]

See shit like this is why this whole damned transgender thing is so goddamn stupid. You can't prove the guy isn't a trans women and if you say "oh well maybe he should only get it if he's got the surgery" they can just say they can't afford it. If you disagree or try to nay say you're oppressing them.

It's really quite amazing what these social justice groups have done, they've created a perfect... loophole? Is that the right word? You literally cannot question their nonsense without repercussions while the other person gets to do whatever they want.

As for your question, sure just give it to them. I'd imagine it would be hard to attach any kind of condition considering how dumb the situation is to begin with.

I wonder if you thought this through. A person in such an instance would still have to commit to "being a woman," as they could get their scholarship and/or position revoked at any time. This also means the probability of being subject to extra discrimination and scrutiny. This isn't an Adam Sandler movie we're talking about. There's this massive cultural paranoia about being "tricked" by groups, and it almost never works out in reality.

Do you really think it's actually a problem that "social justice" groups have enabled a few people to abuse a system while enabling a larger group to do so? Is that really your big concern here?

You do realize that to transition they have to see a doctor yes? Do you somehow imagine that they just get anything they want without any kind of checking?

Well, you don't need a doctor to "transition." You need a doctor to be prescribed hormones or qualify for GRS, but transitioning is more than just medical.

However, I have trouble buying that a college is going to accept a situation like this blindly.

You'll forgive me if this doesn't sound a lot like one of those "if we permit gays to marry, next people will be marrying their cats" scenarios.

When the first case of this occurring comes to light, bring it here and we'll discuss it.

As I mention above, there's a similar idea just that if we permit something, people will start abusing it. And to be honest, they probably will. The larger worry for me is that we start deciding to limit legit cases based on abuse we can almost never prove is prevalent and is almost always treated as though it is.

There is Rachel Dolezal, who got a scholarship on the grounds that she was black (she isn't).

Last I knew, there were plenty of programs that helped Native Americans that people were exploiting.

In fact, I've brought this up in the past, and nobody really seemed to care until they could use "transracial" as a point to score against trans individuals. Which is sort of fine with me, because I don't care either. I'm half Native and have family who have benefited from such programs. My bigger worry is that such programs might be taken away from people who could actually use it--including people worse off than my relatives--based on a relatively small number of cases of documented abuse.

Because that's the complaint that tends to lead to the end of beneficial programs, or inclusion of groups that should be included.

But I suspect you're not going to find as many cases of someone living as the opposite sex for a scholarship, given the cost and issues surrounding such a transition.

Trans panic is still a legal defense for murder in 49 states.

The logical endpoint of accepting that sex can be changed is accepting that being a human can be changed.

Now that sounds like the "marry their cats" slippery slope argument.

When peer-reviewed evidence comes out about transspecies individuals that indicates that A. they exist and B. the appropriate therapy is species reassignment, call me and we'll talk. But even then, I probably won't care. How does it diminish me if someone else decides of their own accord to be a dolphin[footnote]termed to assume worst case scenario, where they literally are choosing, because my point is more "I don't care" than "it's a choice[/footnote], whether or not species dysphoria is a real thing? The answer is not at all[footnote]to a margin of error where I don't give a damn[/footnote].

Do you seriously think somebody would spend their life as a different gender for the sake of a scholarship? This is similar (though less creepy) than the questions asking whether a man might be lying to spy on/ harass women in the women's bathrooms. Why not ask about Sophia in "Orange is the New Black" being in a women's prison since that's far more topical?

Which is amazing, when you consider that came up specifically because a bunch of "concerned people" were defending a kiddie fiddler.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Maybe remove gender-based quotas altogether, considering how everybody keeps saying gender shouldn't matter in the first place.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

That's a slippery slope argument. It is exactly like saying "if marriage isn't between a man and a woman, that means people will be marrying kids and animals". People are essentially saying "your gender identity must correspond with your biological sex, if it doesn't that means people will be able to become dolphins or have butterfly wings or whatever". Things like giant synthetic eyes are cosmetic, they serve no purpose other than they look a certain way, just like tattoos or breast implants or hair dye. Gender reassignment surgery is not the same thing. Drag queens dress up like women and they openly state that they are men. Transgender people aren't drag queens, they're not putting on a show, they're wearing makeup or taking hormones or getting surgery so they can feel like normal people.

"A person feels like having a penis instead of a vagina does not reflect who they are, they change that through artificial means" to "A person feels like having arms instead of flippers does not reflect who they are, they change that through artificial means" is not a slippery slope. Conceptually, they are exactly the same thing.

Just like eating a cow is conceptually the same as eating a human or eating a car. You switch for another subject entirely and ignore any and all differences between sex and species because apparently they are close enough to you. I mean I guess it's like saying "Having sex with a different sex is conceptually the same as having sex with a different species"! Do you agree or does swapping sex and species suddenly become invalid here?

 

[K12]

People seem to think that accepting that people's gender isn't binary suddenly means you have to unquestioningly accept anything that anybody claims to be, like a dolphin. How about we deal with this situation if/when it ever comes up rather than imply that this is an inevitable consequence of accepting people as transgender.

That likely IS the inevitable outcome of people having the option to drastically modify their bodies. I have little doubt that technology won't eventually be advanced enough for a person to augment themselves into a dolphin, or have butterfly wings grafted onto their back, or have giant synthetic eyes to look like an anime character. The logical endpoint of accepting that sex can be changed is accepting that being a human can be changed.

And of course accepting transgender was an inevitable logical endpoint after the invention of hair dye once people change their birth hair colour they would obviosly feel fine changing their birth gender! After we accept people who are Transpecies we'll all start accepting people who are Transmathematic because they experience dysphoria when people tell them "2 + 2 = 4" rather than "2 + 2 = 5". If we accept that any individual could change an individual characteristic then we must accept that anybody can change anything!

... It was very difficult to parody your initial statement because it was already pretty daft. You are aware of the concept of sexual dimorphism right? And you aware that there is not equivalent "species dimorphism". It isn't exactly a radical idea that some people might develop psychologically, neurologically and morphologically in the same neat binary way.

 

[Asclepion]

You are saying that altering a body part through science is different from altering another body part through science.

It is the same. The distinction is arbitrary.

If you had a custom designed body to be anything you want, the whole idea of gender/sexual/racial or any other assigned identity would cease to be relevant.

 

[DEAD34345]

My answer to the first question is yes, the second isn't a problem to me, and to the third scenario "So?".

People can be or claim to be whatever gender they want for whatever reason they want as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that pisses me off about these scenarios is that there are woman only scholarships to begin with.

"Let's combat inequality by unfairly rejecting people for scholarships based on their gender!" It never ceases to amaze me that some people really think like this.

 

[Something Amyss]

You are saying that altering a body part through science is different from altering another body part through science.

It is the same. The distinction is arbitrary.

If you had a custom designed body to be anything you want, the whole idea of gender/sexual/racial or any other assigned identity would cease to be relevant.

Have you changed your sex before? I mean, it's an available option, but even the majority of trans individuals don't actually opt for GRS. Have you personally changed your skin tone through medical means? The options are available.

I'm guessing the answers are no for each, but gosh, it's strange that with these options available, the relevance of these concepts hasn't changed.

 

[Asclepion]

ITT: Users who didn't understand that I'm saying people being able to modify their bodies according to their personal preference is a GOOD thing. Utopian, even.

 

[Asclepion]

OP, I've derailed your thread at this point. My apologies :3

Anywho, you're comparing two things that aren't comparable, and you're doing it through an analogy that is typically used to demean transgender people and delegitimize gender dysphoria. Posters are quite reasonably assuming that you're posting in bad faith.

I was replying to another poster who used that analogy, using it in a discussion of future hypothetical technology. Context is a thing, and a negative response is indicative of someone else's judgements, not mine.

Besides, are you really going to tell me that you wouldn't want to be a dolphin?

 

[maninahat]

There are actually things in place to prevent people from "pretending" they are transgender. You could ask alleged transgender applicants to provide gender recognition certificates (which you won't have unless you go through an especially elaborate charade that has gone on for a long time) before offering them the scholarship.

I know I've basically ignored the questions, but I find reading up on Transgender related legislation kind of interesting. Did you know that if you change gender in the UK, you have to divorce?

 

[viscomica]

Something was mentioned in another thread (should be easy to tell which one) that made me consider the following:

Suppose there are several scholarship and enrollment quotas for women in order to give them preference for STEM fields in an attempt to increase the participation of women in those areas of study. However, there is a man who says he is transgender and has applied for the female-only scholarships, and only female 'slots' are left for the program that he wants to sign up for.

Should he be granted the scholarships and/or acceptance into the program? Why or why not?

Second scenario for people who answered 'yes' to the previous question. Assume that other men see this as a loophole to get into the field that they want and now all of the slots put aside to be filled by women are filled by men claiming to be transgender. Is this a problem? If yes, what can be done to solve it?

Third scenario. Same as the above, except instead of men pretending to be transgender, they actually are transgender. What should be done if anything?

Are you talking about a transgender woman who was biologically a man? Or are we talking a transgender man who was born as a woman? Because in the former case I think we would be in presence of a fraud or trying to manipulate the system to still get the scholarship (it is far-fetched because one would think being transgender is already a vulnerable situation and probably a transgender man would not want to be called a woman just for the sake of getting a scholarship)
If we're talking about the former situation (see questions above)then yes, why wouldn't she be entitled to participate in those scholarships and enrollment quotas?
Those are my two cents. (Just thought you weren't clear enough)

 

[Jux]

And what role will Chevy Chase play in this sitcom? That's what we're talking about right? A series of hilarious and unlikely events not based in reality?

I was thinking it was going to be an Adam Sandler movie. As a follow up to his other critically acclaimed movie that dealt with people pretending to be a minority so they could game the system (I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry).

 

[wizzy555]

How do the genderfluid factor into this scenario?