Poll: A sensitive question about transgender and locker rooms

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,?referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

AND FYI, the medical angle is how I always view these things.. it is what I do.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Just because something applies to you does not mean it applies to everyone.

snip

Is creationism a fact then? Or Jesus? Ones culture or religion is not fact. Show the well placed evidence if it exists, which it doesn't. You were the one who corrected me on this point Lil Devils a ways ago, so again this leads to you another hypocrisy, or maybe just a poor memory.

If they were given options to be both society would not be pressuring them to choose. It has not yet come that far. They are not given facilities for both, there are not many options for them in sex segregated areas for both society in general has not yet accepted them as both.

This is wrong, factually. They are given options, you just didnt know about them, and assumed other wize. Plently of people choose to be gender-queer and plenty choose to be women or men. The key is that its their choice.

For the aside: Is skin tone different between the tribes? I always assumed the reason they were lumped together was their same brownish skin tone. I mean your white so i know that one does not have to be white to be a first nation person, but still, skin color attributes to how one could of been marginalized, that was more of my point. Sorry for being vague.

Comparing two spirits to creationism is comparing apples to orangutans. It has been known for thousands of years that gender does not have to match sex, and has now been confirmed in brain scans as well. This isn't some ' new discovery" we know nothing about, humanity has been living as and with this for a very long time now, and much has already been established by the many cultures of the world as well as science. Now you are just being silly for the sake of being silly.

They are NOT given options in the majority of western society, and that is an issue. Some have started to give them options, but it is far from being accepted everywhere as of yet. facilities are not provided everywhere yet, "Queer" is ALSO a derogatory term and have been used to abuse Two spirits as well, so it can also be considered a very negative and hurtful word, of course people in western society would not choose to be called "gender queer" because of the stigmas that go along with it."Queer" is still trying to say something is wrong with them. UGH, why must all words in the west used to describe two spirits be negative? It would be nice if for once they had a word without the negative " you are broken and not right" attached to it.

Yes, skin tone is different among the tribes, and the tribes actually came to the Americas at different times over thousands of years, so genetically they are frequently very different.

I can compare whatever i want, that is why its called a comparison. The only point that needs to be the same is the point i am comparing. The comparison as i stated before is that you have a set of beliefs which are not based on fact. Two spirited people are not based on science, they are cultural, as is every facet of gender as far as sociology is concerned. To argue gender is biological is something that i personally wish was true, but know the brain scan studies do not fully support, since they only show differences in brain structure, not the origins of such. That is the nature of nature vs nurture issues though.

And yea "Queer" being a derogatory term is more contextual than anything. Sorry if that offends you, but the western term and movement people identify with is "genderqueer". Negative words dont have to always stay negative you know? Case and point the N-word and african americans?

It is funny how you still dont get it. You refer to people as two spirited as if you had that right. Do you understand my point? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives. If they want to be women even though they were born men, then they get to be women. They dont have to KowTow to your "two spirited" viewpoint simply because you "think" it is better. It is like me calling all Hopi people "brown dudes" simply because they might of at one point had brown skin and i feel that it was appropriate for my "Western" culture. One culture doesn't trump another.

I have just as much right to refer to them as two spirit as you do to refer to them as homo sapiens. It is a non derogatory word with a definition that applies. It is no more wrong to refer to someone who has both masculine and feminine as two spirited as it is to refer to water as being wet. Yes, I DO have that right, and no I am not going to stop using my right simply because you think you have the right to take that right from me. You are still two spirit if you are born a woman and have cosmetic surgery to be a man, surgery does not change that.

If one culture does not " trump another" quit calling two spirits transgenders because transgenders is a negative word by definition and offensive.

LoL I dont call anyone anything. I let people call themselves things. So if a two spirited person from the first nations at my campus wants to be two spirted i dont get involved. And if a person wants to be referd to as women when they are born a man i dont get involved either. You dont understand the concept yet? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives, if you yourself do not want that type of control on you, which you clearly dont.

Homosapian is a scientific term. Two spirited is a first nation term. One is scientific fact, the other is cultural. Whether it is "derogatory" is really up to the individual being referenced and not us to decide. Case and point using the word "black" to refer to dark skined people with hertiage from Africa. I have had many hits and miss using the word.



You have the right to call someone whatever they want i understand that. That doesn't make you a sensible person though. That makes you a hypocrite, which was my point that you either are willfully ignoring or due to cultural differences dont seem to "get".
Regardless of the derogatory or non derogatory nature of the word, you make your self a hypocrite when you hold contradictory standards. And when you reveal someone's hypocracy that is enough to devaule their opinion, which is what i am setting out to do. This is because i dont like people who are so obviously hypocritical, since it makes me trust them less.

So call people whatever you want. Ill just call you out on it dogmaticly because of my contempt for people like you, blatant hypocrites.

Okay now this is just getting silly. I dont want to be called a person anymore because persons did bad things, so don't call me a person anymore m'kay? LOL No, not going along with that concept here, and no, that doesn't make me senseless or a hypocrite. please do not resort to name calling again, it is immature and does not promote better understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

 

[Tsun Tzu]

This is the most protracted and endearingly sad argument about semantics that I've witnessed in recent memory.

Keep it up!

As for the OP:

I have no idea here. Just as conflicted. No desire to make people uncomfortable in general...so-

Single stalls for all!

Edit: Oh, saw the pics of the person in question.

Just looks like a burly chick.

Not seeing the problem here.

 

[neverwintergirl]

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't mean the women's locker room. I meant the mens one.

I'm still not sure I understand then. Which locker room should a trans woman (born male, transitioning to female) use? Assuming she looks female but still has "man parts"? Does it really make sense for someone like "Line Trap" to use the men's room?

If you don't know who that is she became internet famous. I just google IMAGE searched her name in quotes just like this:

"Line Trap"

and the first couple dozen (or more) results are semi-NSFW. No nudity or nipples or genitals, but cleavage and people in underwear and suggestive poses.

Sorry if this is against the rules..

Probably rude of me but damn. Line Trap is hot.

And it's funny as hell. Just the other week I had someone calling me transphobic because I called a character a trap because they were male that looked female. Turns out they were a tans-woman character as well and apparently some trans-women take deep offense to the word trap despite it having nothing to do with gender identity, just appearance. Oh and it wasn't a trans-person that got pissed off at me for that either, it was a straight person being offended on behalf of somebody else. Pathetically common thing around here.

And my post was in response to this thread specifically. If you read the OP, you'd know that the trans-woman in question looked absolutely male. To be honest, Line Trap would probably get away with using the womens room considering she looks absolutely female. If she was discreet about changing no one would even notice her man bits, most likely. (You did say she still has her man bits) I mean, she has breasts and all so I doubt anyone would notice. I could think of some women that would be jealous of how pretty she is.

Also, welcome to the Escapist. You won't be moderated for saying "there's this NSFW stuff that's relevant here's how you can find it if you wish" but you'd likely get moderated for actually posting NSFW content.

Oh yeah she's pretty for sure. And I just posted because she's probably the most well known attractive trans woman. I'm jealous even though I "pass" like her just fine. As I said earlier I haven't had someone call me male (or anything related to it) in 10ish years. I've been told I'm pretty as well, but I don't see it. (ugh at body issues for women). But yeah I elected to have man bits as well and I have to use the women's rest room. If I went into the men's room I'd get harassed, yelled at, hit on, or sexually assaulted.

I did scroll back and see the pictures of the trans woman at planet fitness. To be honest, I don't necessarily see that it's 100% obvious she's trans (some of the pictures she does looks trans, some she just likes a bigger woman). A lot of guys will say "could totally tell she's a dude" when they already know she's trans, partially as a "I wouldn't get tricked, muahaha" type thing. There are online quizzes that try to pick out which women are cis and which women are trans, believe me it's harder than you think to get 100% (some of them use very rude terminology that others, especially trans would find offensive). I only do this because I'm fine with self deprecation.

And thanks for the welcome

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

For the last time, that is one definition that is conflicted by that very same site.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

If you want to argue against the treatment of transgender/two spirits then that's fine, but the word "transgender" does not contribute to those views. Going by the definition from the very same site you are fond of linking, a transgender person is:

"a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person?s biological sex assigned at birth"

What exactly is offensive or untrue about that?

 

[Rosiv]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

The CAPS i use are for emphasis not for rudeness.

Do you know how a dictionary works? The LEAST common definition is the one listed last. Not even to mention you IGNORE the first three definitions, as other definitions as well. This is what we call "cherry picking" in an argument, and is another way to look disingenuous.

The definition does state that there is a misalignment yes, but using YOUR source to prove your sillyness.

misaligned = improperly aligned. by your source and when looking up the word improper:

not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous:
He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence.
2.
not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.:
improper conduct at a funeral.
3.
unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion:
improper attire for a formal dance.
4.
abnormal or irregular:

All these don't mean it is BAD, but BAD for the person experiencing it. THEY feel that they are improper and want to be in a way they see fit, and it is THEIR choice to do so. Which as stated before goes back to your hypocrisy on how trans people can not be respected in their identities, but you expect to be respected with yours?

Your Johns Hopskins source, a good way to try and sensationalize the argument, but nevertheless irrelevant to my POINT. One mans or your opnion has no meaning in the context of transgender or two spirited or what they identify as policy. My point was that YOU are a hypocrite in not respecting their identity REGARDLESS of hormone replacement therapy or surgery. If one wants to identify as a man when they were female, they should be respected to do so, as we respect you for identifying for what ever you identify with.

And sorry for the mistake of language, i assumed that being raised in an environment would also imply going to get education in that environment. I assumed the HOPI had their own schools. My mistake.

 

[Rosiv]

Just because something applies to you does not mean it applies to everyone.

snip

Is creationism a fact then? Or Jesus? Ones culture or religion is not fact. Show the well placed evidence if it exists, which it doesn't. You were the one who corrected me on this point Lil Devils a ways ago, so again this leads to you another hypocrisy, or maybe just a poor memory.

If they were given options to be both society would not be pressuring them to choose. It has not yet come that far. They are not given facilities for both, there are not many options for them in sex segregated areas for both society in general has not yet accepted them as both.

This is wrong, factually. They are given options, you just didnt know about them, and assumed other wize. Plently of people choose to be gender-queer and plenty choose to be women or men. The key is that its their choice.

For the aside: Is skin tone different between the tribes? I always assumed the reason they were lumped together was their same brownish skin tone. I mean your white so i know that one does not have to be white to be a first nation person, but still, skin color attributes to how one could of been marginalized, that was more of my point. Sorry for being vague.

Comparing two spirits to creationism is comparing apples to orangutans. It has been known for thousands of years that gender does not have to match sex, and has now been confirmed in brain scans as well. This isn't some ' new discovery" we know nothing about, humanity has been living as and with this for a very long time now, and much has already been established by the many cultures of the world as well as science. Now you are just being silly for the sake of being silly.

They are NOT given options in the majority of western society, and that is an issue. Some have started to give them options, but it is far from being accepted everywhere as of yet. facilities are not provided everywhere yet, "Queer" is ALSO a derogatory term and have been used to abuse Two spirits as well, so it can also be considered a very negative and hurtful word, of course people in western society would not choose to be called "gender queer" because of the stigmas that go along with it."Queer" is still trying to say something is wrong with them. UGH, why must all words in the west used to describe two spirits be negative? It would be nice if for once they had a word without the negative " you are broken and not right" attached to it.

Yes, skin tone is different among the tribes, and the tribes actually came to the Americas at different times over thousands of years, so genetically they are frequently very different.

I can compare whatever i want, that is why its called a comparison. The only point that needs to be the same is the point i am comparing. The comparison as i stated before is that you have a set of beliefs which are not based on fact. Two spirited people are not based on science, they are cultural, as is every facet of gender as far as sociology is concerned. To argue gender is biological is something that i personally wish was true, but know the brain scan studies do not fully support, since they only show differences in brain structure, not the origins of such. That is the nature of nature vs nurture issues though.

And yea "Queer" being a derogatory term is more contextual than anything. Sorry if that offends you, but the western term and movement people identify with is "genderqueer". Negative words dont have to always stay negative you know? Case and point the N-word and african americans?

It is funny how you still dont get it. You refer to people as two spirited as if you had that right. Do you understand my point? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives. If they want to be women even though they were born men, then they get to be women. They dont have to KowTow to your "two spirited" viewpoint simply because you "think" it is better. It is like me calling all Hopi people "brown dudes" simply because they might of at one point had brown skin and i feel that it was appropriate for my "Western" culture. One culture doesn't trump another.

I have just as much right to refer to them as two spirit as you do to refer to them as homo sapiens. It is a non derogatory word with a definition that applies. It is no more wrong to refer to someone who has both masculine and feminine as two spirited as it is to refer to water as being wet. Yes, I DO have that right, and no I am not going to stop using my right simply because you think you have the right to take that right from me. You are still two spirit if you are born a woman and have cosmetic surgery to be a man, surgery does not change that.

If one culture does not " trump another" quit calling two spirits transgenders because transgenders is a negative word by definition and offensive.

LoL I dont call anyone anything. I let people call themselves things. So if a two spirited person from the first nations at my campus wants to be two spirted i dont get involved. And if a person wants to be referd to as women when they are born a man i dont get involved either. You dont understand the concept yet? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives, if you yourself do not want that type of control on you, which you clearly dont.

Homosapian is a scientific term. Two spirited is a first nation term. One is scientific fact, the other is cultural. Whether it is "derogatory" is really up to the individual being referenced and not us to decide. Case and point using the word "black" to refer to dark skined people with hertiage from Africa. I have had many hits and miss using the word.



You have the right to call someone whatever they want i understand that. That doesn't make you a sensible person though. That makes you a hypocrite, which was my point that you either are willfully ignoring or due to cultural differences dont seem to "get".
Regardless of the derogatory or non derogatory nature of the word, you make your self a hypocrite when you hold contradictory standards. And when you reveal someone's hypocracy that is enough to devaule their opinion, which is what i am setting out to do. This is because i dont like people who are so obviously hypocritical, since it makes me trust them less.

So call people whatever you want. Ill just call you out on it dogmaticly because of my contempt for people like you, blatant hypocrites.

Okay now this is just getting silly. I dont want to be called a person anymore because persons did bad things, so don't call me a person anymore m'kay? LOL No, not going along with that concept here, and no, that doesn't make me senseless or a hypocrite. please do not resort to name calling again, it is immature and does not promote better understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

LOL your desperation is funny, the fact that you can not address your own inconsistencies is funny, which is why i point them out and call them silly, for i find them amusing. This inst name calling, if it was the moderators would of gotten involved. This is a factual description of you being inconsistent in this discussion, which i personally am cross with and will argue that point with you. The point that you can not expect people to take you seriously when being inconsistent,and that not respecting people's identity hypocritical by your own standards you espouse so frequently about your own identity.

Pointing out ones hypocrisy is not childish. Telling someone that pointing out their hypocrisy is childish is childish in itself, for it lacks accountability for ones actions, which children often do. Take responsibility for your hypocrisy if it bothers you so much, that is why find it "getting silly", because i reduced your argument to sillyness, showing your blatant contradictions.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

The CAPS i use are for emphasis not for rudeness.

Do you know how a dictionary works? The LEAST common definition is the one listed last. Not even to mention you IGNORE the first three definitions, as other definitions as well. This is what we call "cherry picking" in an argument, and is another way to look disingenuous.

The definition does state that there is a misalignment yes, but using YOUR source to prove your sillyness.

misaligned = improperly aligned. by your source and when looking up the word improper:

not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous:
He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence.
2.
not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.:
improper conduct at a funeral.
3.
unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion:
improper attire for a formal dance.
4.
abnormal or irregular:

All these don't mean it is BAD, but BAD for the person experiencing it. THEY feel that they are improper and want to be in a way they see fit, and it is THEIR choice to do so. Which as stated before goes back to your hypocrisy on how trans people can not be respected in their identities, but you expect to be respected with yours?

Your Johns Hopskins source, a good way to try and sensationalize the argument, but nevertheless irrelevant to my POINT. One mans or your opnion has no meaning in the context of transgender or two spirited or what they identify as policy. My point was that YOU are a hypocrite in not respecting their identity REGARDLESS of hormone replacement therapy or surgery. If one wants to identify as a man when they were female, they should be respected to do so, as we respect you for identifying for what ever you identify with.

And sorry for the mistake of language, i assumed that being raised in an environment would also imply going to get education in that environment. I assumed the HOPI had their own schools. My mistake.

Do you know how the dictionary works? The proper usage and meaning of the word is separated by definition, that was why they provided multiple definitions for proper usage . Although transgender may be the least usage of the word, in that sense it was used to refer to the " misalignment" as was elaborated on in the definition. I do not need to explain that to you, you know that and chose to ignore it.

You were the one attempting to "sensationalize" the argument by arguing with the dictionary. It isn't "one mans" or "the dictionary" here.. I can list more references if you so like.. they have even called it "sexual realignment" depending on which medical source you choose to read if you want to get into all of the appropriate terms..

I am not disrespecting anyone's "identity" I am using the definition. It is not disrespectful to call someone a person. It is not disrespectful to call someone two spirit. Neither are negative terms. Calling someone a two spirit is no more disrespectful than calling them a person.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Just because something applies to you does not mean it applies to everyone.

snip

Is creationism a fact then? Or Jesus? Ones culture or religion is not fact. Show the well placed evidence if it exists, which it doesn't. You were the one who corrected me on this point Lil Devils a ways ago, so again this leads to you another hypocrisy, or maybe just a poor memory.

If they were given options to be both society would not be pressuring them to choose. It has not yet come that far. They are not given facilities for both, there are not many options for them in sex segregated areas for both society in general has not yet accepted them as both.

This is wrong, factually. They are given options, you just didnt know about them, and assumed other wize. Plently of people choose to be gender-queer and plenty choose to be women or men. The key is that its their choice.

For the aside: Is skin tone different between the tribes? I always assumed the reason they were lumped together was their same brownish skin tone. I mean your white so i know that one does not have to be white to be a first nation person, but still, skin color attributes to how one could of been marginalized, that was more of my point. Sorry for being vague.

Comparing two spirits to creationism is comparing apples to orangutans. It has been known for thousands of years that gender does not have to match sex, and has now been confirmed in brain scans as well. This isn't some ' new discovery" we know nothing about, humanity has been living as and with this for a very long time now, and much has already been established by the many cultures of the world as well as science. Now you are just being silly for the sake of being silly.

They are NOT given options in the majority of western society, and that is an issue. Some have started to give them options, but it is far from being accepted everywhere as of yet. facilities are not provided everywhere yet, "Queer" is ALSO a derogatory term and have been used to abuse Two spirits as well, so it can also be considered a very negative and hurtful word, of course people in western society would not choose to be called "gender queer" because of the stigmas that go along with it."Queer" is still trying to say something is wrong with them. UGH, why must all words in the west used to describe two spirits be negative? It would be nice if for once they had a word without the negative " you are broken and not right" attached to it.

Yes, skin tone is different among the tribes, and the tribes actually came to the Americas at different times over thousands of years, so genetically they are frequently very different.

I can compare whatever i want, that is why its called a comparison. The only point that needs to be the same is the point i am comparing. The comparison as i stated before is that you have a set of beliefs which are not based on fact. Two spirited people are not based on science, they are cultural, as is every facet of gender as far as sociology is concerned. To argue gender is biological is something that i personally wish was true, but know the brain scan studies do not fully support, since they only show differences in brain structure, not the origins of such. That is the nature of nature vs nurture issues though.

And yea "Queer" being a derogatory term is more contextual than anything. Sorry if that offends you, but the western term and movement people identify with is "genderqueer". Negative words dont have to always stay negative you know? Case and point the N-word and african americans?

It is funny how you still dont get it. You refer to people as two spirited as if you had that right. Do you understand my point? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives. If they want to be women even though they were born men, then they get to be women. They dont have to KowTow to your "two spirited" viewpoint simply because you "think" it is better. It is like me calling all Hopi people "brown dudes" simply because they might of at one point had brown skin and i feel that it was appropriate for my "Western" culture. One culture doesn't trump another.

I have just as much right to refer to them as two spirit as you do to refer to them as homo sapiens. It is a non derogatory word with a definition that applies. It is no more wrong to refer to someone who has both masculine and feminine as two spirited as it is to refer to water as being wet. Yes, I DO have that right, and no I am not going to stop using my right simply because you think you have the right to take that right from me. You are still two spirit if you are born a woman and have cosmetic surgery to be a man, surgery does not change that.

If one culture does not " trump another" quit calling two spirits transgenders because transgenders is a negative word by definition and offensive.

LoL I dont call anyone anything. I let people call themselves things. So if a two spirited person from the first nations at my campus wants to be two spirted i dont get involved. And if a person wants to be referd to as women when they are born a man i dont get involved either. You dont understand the concept yet? You dont get to tell people how to live their lives, if you yourself do not want that type of control on you, which you clearly dont.

Homosapian is a scientific term. Two spirited is a first nation term. One is scientific fact, the other is cultural. Whether it is "derogatory" is really up to the individual being referenced and not us to decide. Case and point using the word "black" to refer to dark skined people with hertiage from Africa. I have had many hits and miss using the word.



You have the right to call someone whatever they want i understand that. That doesn't make you a sensible person though. That makes you a hypocrite, which was my point that you either are willfully ignoring or due to cultural differences dont seem to "get".
Regardless of the derogatory or non derogatory nature of the word, you make your self a hypocrite when you hold contradictory standards. And when you reveal someone's hypocracy that is enough to devaule their opinion, which is what i am setting out to do. This is because i dont like people who are so obviously hypocritical, since it makes me trust them less.

So call people whatever you want. Ill just call you out on it dogmaticly because of my contempt for people like you, blatant hypocrites.

Okay now this is just getting silly. I dont want to be called a person anymore because persons did bad things, so don't call me a person anymore m'kay? LOL No, not going along with that concept here, and no, that doesn't make me senseless or a hypocrite. please do not resort to name calling again, it is immature and does not promote better understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

LOL your desperation is funny, the fact that you can not address your own inconsistencies is funny, which is why i point them out and call them silly, for i find them amusing. This inst name calling, if it was the moderators would of gotten involved. This is a factual description of you being inconsistent in this discussion, which i personally am cross with and will argue that point with you. The point that you can not expect people to take you seriously when being inconsistent,and that not respecting people's identity hypocritical by your own standards you espouse so frequently about your own identity.

Pointing out ones hypocrisy is not childish. Telling someone that pointing out their hypocrisy is childish is childish in itself, for it lacks accountability for ones actions, which children often do. Take responsibility for your hypocrisy if it bothers you so much, that is why find it "getting silly", because i reduced your argument to sillyness, showing your blatant contradictions.

You might want to get some rest and come back and reread what you have written. Any idea of "desperation" is a figment of your imagination as well as you perception of hypocrisy and inconsistency.

You claim you will refer to people by whatever they want to be referred as regardless of definitions and that somehow makes you sensible. So if A few people do not want to be referred to as people anymore than you would no longer be sensible if you refereed to them as people. Think about how what you said plays out in larger society. We can no longer call anything anything anymore because someone somewhere might want to be called something else.. yea. that is going to work real well. This is ridiculous. If all you are here to argue about is whether or not it is okay to call a person a person because they do not want to be called a person any longer, than there isn't anything constructive to be had in this conversation with you and I bid you good day.

 

[Rosiv]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

The CAPS i use are for emphasis not for rudeness.

Do you know how a dictionary works? The LEAST common definition is the one listed last. Not even to mention you IGNORE the first three definitions, as other definitions as well. This is what we call "cherry picking" in an argument, and is another way to look disingenuous.

The definition does state that there is a misalignment yes, but using YOUR source to prove your sillyness.

misaligned = improperly aligned. by your source and when looking up the word improper:

not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous:
He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence.
2.
not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.:
improper conduct at a funeral.
3.
unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion:
improper attire for a formal dance.
4.
abnormal or irregular:

All these don't mean it is BAD, but BAD for the person experiencing it. THEY feel that they are improper and want to be in a way they see fit, and it is THEIR choice to do so. Which as stated before goes back to your hypocrisy on how trans people can not be respected in their identities, but you expect to be respected with yours?

Your Johns Hopskins source, a good way to try and sensationalize the argument, but nevertheless irrelevant to my POINT. One mans or your opnion has no meaning in the context of transgender or two spirited or what they identify as policy. My point was that YOU are a hypocrite in not respecting their identity REGARDLESS of hormone replacement therapy or surgery. If one wants to identify as a man when they were female, they should be respected to do so, as we respect you for identifying for what ever you identify with.

And sorry for the mistake of language, i assumed that being raised in an environment would also imply going to get education in that environment. I assumed the HOPI had their own schools. My mistake.

Do you know how the dictionary works? The proper usage and meaning of the word is separated by definition, that was why they provided multiple definitions for proper usage . Although transgender may be the least usage of the word, in that sense it was used to refer to the " misalignment" as was elaborated on in the definition. I do not need to explain that to you, you know that and chose to ignore it.

You were the one attempting to "sensationalize" the argument by arguing with the dictionary. It isn't "one mans" or "the dictionary" here.. I can list more references if you so like.. they have even called it "sexual realignment depending on which medical source you choose to read if you want to get into all of the appropriate terms..

I am not disrespecting anyone's "identity" I am using the definition. It is not disrespectful to call someone a person. It is not disrespectful to call someone two spirit. Neither are negative terms. Calling someone a two spirit is no more disrespectful than calling them a person.

No no no, i guess you really dont get it. One definition doesn't make your case. Cherry picking a definition doesnt either. Nor does ignoring ALL the OTHER definitions presented to you. I could and did, as others have, present to you definitions that follow your "Category" issue you espouse, and that by your own standards would make you wrong, which you already are because people have done so. So when it comes to ignoring things, its you sadly.

Here just to humor you ill find a definition to counter yours and that means that we are both wrong?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

Nope it just means that different people DESCRIBE different situations differently.
Lets not forget that definitions are not absolute, they are descriptive, not prescriptive, or else whenever two definitions contradicted, one would have to be wrong, which cant be the case in a description, since it is opinion based.

You don't understand again, that is fine. You are being disrespectful by being such a blatant hypocrite in standards. We do not restrict your identity, do not restrict others. Do you understand? You disrespect trans people by stating that they can not men OR women, and are hypocritical to boot, which is why i post to demonstrate that to you. This is how you disrespect them, you don't let them identify as what they wish to be, how can you NOT see that?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

The CAPS i use are for emphasis not for rudeness.

Do you know how a dictionary works? The LEAST common definition is the one listed last. Not even to mention you IGNORE the first three definitions, as other definitions as well. This is what we call "cherry picking" in an argument, and is another way to look disingenuous.

The definition does state that there is a misalignment yes, but using YOUR source to prove your sillyness.

misaligned = improperly aligned. by your source and when looking up the word improper:

not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous:
He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence.
2.
not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.:
improper conduct at a funeral.
3.
unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion:
improper attire for a formal dance.
4.
abnormal or irregular:

All these don't mean it is BAD, but BAD for the person experiencing it. THEY feel that they are improper and want to be in a way they see fit, and it is THEIR choice to do so. Which as stated before goes back to your hypocrisy on how trans people can not be respected in their identities, but you expect to be respected with yours?

Your Johns Hopskins source, a good way to try and sensationalize the argument, but nevertheless irrelevant to my POINT. One mans or your opnion has no meaning in the context of transgender or two spirited or what they identify as policy. My point was that YOU are a hypocrite in not respecting their identity REGARDLESS of hormone replacement therapy or surgery. If one wants to identify as a man when they were female, they should be respected to do so, as we respect you for identifying for what ever you identify with.

And sorry for the mistake of language, i assumed that being raised in an environment would also imply going to get education in that environment. I assumed the HOPI had their own schools. My mistake.

Do you know how the dictionary works? The proper usage and meaning of the word is separated by definition, that was why they provided multiple definitions for proper usage . Although transgender may be the least usage of the word, in that sense it was used to refer to the " misalignment" as was elaborated on in the definition. I do not need to explain that to you, you know that and chose to ignore it.

You were the one attempting to "sensationalize" the argument by arguing with the dictionary. It isn't "one mans" or "the dictionary" here.. I can list more references if you so like.. they have even called it "sexual realignment depending on which medical source you choose to read if you want to get into all of the appropriate terms..

I am not disrespecting anyone's "identity" I am using the definition. It is not disrespectful to call someone a person. It is not disrespectful to call someone two spirit. Neither are negative terms. Calling someone a two spirit is no more disrespectful than calling them a person.

No no no, i guess you really dont get it. One definition doesn't make your case. Cherry picking a definition doesnt either. Nor does ignoring ALL the OTHER definitions presented to you. I could and did, as others have, present to you definitions that follow your "Category" issue you espouse, and that by your own standards would make you wrong, which you already are because people have done so. So when it comes to ignoring things, its you sadly.

Here just to humor you ill find a definition to counter yours and that means that we are both wrong?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

Nope it just means that different people DESCRIBE different situations differently.
Lets not forget that definitions are not absolute, they are descriptive, not prescriptive, or else whenever two definitions contradicted, one would have to be wrong, which cant be the case in a description, since it is opinion based.

You don't understand again, that is fine. You are being disrespectful by being such a blatant hypocrite in standards. We do not restrict your identity, do not restrict others. Do you understand? You disrespect trans people by stating that they can not men OR women, and are hypocritical to boot, which is why i post to demonstrate that to you. This is how you disrespect them, you don't let them identify as what they wish to be, how can you NOT see that?

One definition does make my case,a s that was what I was discussing. Simply because words have other meanings does not suddenly remove the case for the usage and meaning of the word in the context I was addressing it as. I am referring to this meaning and usage, any other usage and meaning is irrelevant to this conversation as I am applying it to the term " transgender" as was directly referenced, in the meaning that was defined.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Do you know how the dictionary works? The proper usage and meaning of the word is separated by definition, that was why they provided multiple definitions for proper usage . Although transgender may be the least usage of the word, in that sense it was used to refer to the " misalignment" as was elaborated on in the definition. I do not need to explain that to you, you know that and chose to ignore it.

You were the one attempting to "sensationalize" the argument by arguing with the dictionary. It isn't "one mans" or "the dictionary" here.. I can list more references if you so like.. they have even called it "sexual realignment depending on which medical source you choose to read if you want to get into all of the appropriate terms..

I am not disrespecting anyone's "identity" I am using the definition. It is not disrespectful to call someone a person. It is not disrespectful to call someone two spirit. Neither are negative terms. Calling someone a two spirit is no more disrespectful than calling them a person.

Okay, I know I said in my last post that it was the last time I'd bring this up, and I know you'll probably ignore this post like all the others, but what the hell? May as well yell into the void once again.

You are not using <color=red>the definition from <color=red>the dictionary, you are using <color=red>a definition from <color=red>a dictionary. You are using a single cherry picked definition for "transgender" that was offhandedly mentioned on a page for the prefix "trans-". On the very same site, using their page specifically for their defintion "transgender", they make exactly zero uses of the word "misaligned".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender
Read it yourself and tell me how many times they use the word "misaligned".

Whether medical experts want to use terms like "sexual realignment" has no relivance to the offensiveness of the word "transgender".

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

snip

snip

I appreciate the passion here but this conversation is derailing the H out of the thread

Could you please take this conversation outside? I know it is quasi-related to the topic at hand but the definitions and technical terms and whatnot of what is and what isn't the meaning of transgender and whether it's offensive to call someone transgender isn't the point of what I wanted to discuss here.

Thank you

 

[Rosiv]

Yes, but the issue is all of the words in the west that are used to describe them have the underlying theme that "something is not right" negative. That is the problem with starting from this angle, the way this is viewed as something being broken that needs fixed from the beginning, is weighted and biased against them from the go. How can they ever view themselves as " normal" and live a normal life when even the very words to describe them are weighted against them?

I wouldn't say the term "trans" implies a negative. It's more directly descriptive; etymologically it means "across".

According to the definitions in the dictionaries, it is negative. Referring it to being a " misalignment" is negative, that it is something that is not right and needs to be fixed.

"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-


When your car's wheels are misaligned you go get it aligned.

a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:

Cis and trans refer to "on the other side". This doesnt have to mean a negative word though. You just think it is via your interpretation. It is a contrast to the word Cis which means "the same side" and was originally used by the greeks to refer to their mountain ranges sides.

I could make the same argument about the word "black" or "women" being derogatory simply due to connotations people have with either the color black or the concept of women being a verbal "subset" of man.

Being in the medical field myself, the reason for my concern with the usage of this terminology to describe someone means there is something inherently wrong that we need to treat, and I disagree that is necessary the case simply because they are both masculine and feminine and it sets a dangerous precedent. They would necessarily need to remove the idea of a misalignment being present in order to make the word non negative.

What exactly are you talking about? Tell me how the word "trans" implies "need to treat" please. Do you mean "misaligned", because that was your interpretation of the word trans, which is a stretch, and as stated before not really true to the words origin or use, which as stated before come from the greeks refering to "sides" of mountain ranges. Not to be rude of course.

" misaligned" was the dictionaries term, not mine. I didn't " stretch it", and actually it is an improvement over the history of how this has been treated. This still is diagnosed by a mental health provider with ?Gender Dysphoria.?
And yes right now they are viewing this as a misalignment that needs to be aligned, and yes, have been doing experiments on mice to try and prevent it from happening in the first place. When you start with the premise that this is a condition that needs to be treated, yes they do start to look for treatments cures as a result. So when we have the ability in science to prevent them from existing in the first place, if it is seen as something that should be treated they will.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/

No, no it wasnt. And yea you did stretch it. If trans was a negative word then it would be a very silly thing, that is why it is not a negative word.

A butterfy TRANS forms from a pupa.

I TRANS ferred from one school to another.

I used my TRANSfer Pippeter to draw 3ml of solution.

I TRANSlated my spanish homework today.

When the word TRANS is used, it is not in a negative sense. It implies a shift, nothing more, and was as stated before, originally used to refer to the different sides of mountains by the greeks. Note the word different and not bad.

And your mouse study is really really irrelevant. We have complex societies and therefore sociology. The sociological theory, whether i agree with it or not, is about gender being a social construct. If that is the case, then one's biology doesnt have anything to do with gender until proven so( not that i believe this, this is just the common thought).

As for the medicilization angle. The "treatment" is a red hearing to what you originally propose. Your inconstancy of not respecting the identity of trans people, when you expect to be respected yourself. The medicalziation angle is done for trans people because as stated before, and over and over again, the word "trans" implies a change and a shift. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that some would like to "shift" over from male to female more than others.

The "Dysphoria" is because they feel "misaligned" yes. But to say that then they can not do what they feel is right and transition? That makes you a hypocritical and inconsistent, since you, as stated before, are expected to have control over your own expression as well. The viewpoint isnt even that. It is that if the person feels they need to transition, after consultation, then they try a Real world test with or without Hormone therapy to see if they can handle living as a women or man without transitioning. This is a decision for the individual to make, not YOU. Or else i get to start telling you how to live your life. I mean its silly for you to even hold this position for western cultures are not the only ones to favor the concept of having trans people be identified as women or men or both. In Thailand and the philipines trans people can be either male or female or both.

Yes, IT WAS. did you read it?
"a prefix meaning ?on the other side of,? referring to the misalignment of one?s gender identity with one's biological sex assigned at birth:
transgender; transsexual.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
That isn't me stretching it, that is the dictionary reference. We already know biology has everything to do with gender, no it is not a " mental disorder, as Dr. Paul R. McHugh would like to believe. Though oddly enough here we have the term used again by him in this quote " The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken ? it does not correspond with physical reality."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
The issue is much of the medical community and the general public view this as something broken that needs to be fixed. I am sure his " English" as well as much of the medical community must be poor as well too? I was born HOPI, I attended English speaking schools my entire life.

The CAPS i use are for emphasis not for rudeness.

Do you know how a dictionary works? The LEAST common definition is the one listed last. Not even to mention you IGNORE the first three definitions, as other definitions as well. This is what we call "cherry picking" in an argument, and is another way to look disingenuous.

The definition does state that there is a misalignment yes, but using YOUR source to prove your sillyness.

misaligned = improperly aligned. by your source and when looking up the word improper:

not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous:
He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence.
2.
not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.:
improper conduct at a funeral.
3.
unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion:
improper attire for a formal dance.
4.
abnormal or irregular:

All these don't mean it is BAD, but BAD for the person experiencing it. THEY feel that they are improper and want to be in a way they see fit, and it is THEIR choice to do so. Which as stated before goes back to your hypocrisy on how trans people can not be respected in their identities, but you expect to be respected with yours?

Your Johns Hopskins source, a good way to try and sensationalize the argument, but nevertheless irrelevant to my POINT. One mans or your opnion has no meaning in the context of transgender or two spirited or what they identify as policy. My point was that YOU are a hypocrite in not respecting their identity REGARDLESS of hormone replacement therapy or surgery. If one wants to identify as a man when they were female, they should be respected to do so, as we respect you for identifying for what ever you identify with.

And sorry for the mistake of language, i assumed that being raised in an environment would also imply going to get education in that environment. I assumed the HOPI had their own schools. My mistake.

Do you know how the dictionary works? The proper usage and meaning of the word is separated by definition, that was why they provided multiple definitions for proper usage . Although transgender may be the least usage of the word, in that sense it was used to refer to the " misalignment" as was elaborated on in the definition. I do not need to explain that to you, you know that and chose to ignore it.

You were the one attempting to "sensationalize" the argument by arguing with the dictionary. It isn't "one mans" or "the dictionary" here.. I can list more references if you so like.. they have even called it "sexual realignment depending on which medical source you choose to read if you want to get into all of the appropriate terms..

I am not disrespecting anyone's "identity" I am using the definition. It is not disrespectful to call someone a person. It is not disrespectful to call someone two spirit. Neither are negative terms. Calling someone a two spirit is no more disrespectful than calling them a person.

No no no, i guess you really dont get it. One definition doesn't make your case. Cherry picking a definition doesnt either. Nor does ignoring ALL the OTHER definitions presented to you. I could and did, as others have, present to you definitions that follow your "Category" issue you espouse, and that by your own standards would make you wrong, which you already are because people have done so. So when it comes to ignoring things, its you sadly.

Here just to humor you ill find a definition to counter yours and that means that we are both wrong?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender

Nope it just means that different people DESCRIBE different situations differently.
Lets not forget that definitions are not absolute, they are descriptive, not prescriptive, or else whenever two definitions contradicted, one would have to be wrong, which cant be the case in a description, since it is opinion based.

You don't understand again, that is fine. You are being disrespectful by being such a blatant hypocrite in standards. We do not restrict your identity, do not restrict others. Do you understand? You disrespect trans people by stating that they can not men OR women, and are hypocritical to boot, which is why i post to demonstrate that to you. This is how you disrespect them, you don't let them identify as what they wish to be, how can you NOT see that?

One definition does make my case,a s that was what I was discussing. Simply because words have other meanings does not suddenly remove the case for the usage and meaning of the word in the context I was addressing it as. I am referring to this meaning and usage, any other usage and meaning is irrelevant to this conversation as I am applying it to the term " transgender" as was directly referenced, in the meaning that was defined.

Yea it does remove the case for the usage and meaning of the word, for i can imply that my word/definition overrides yours and under what authority can you deny it? Since we both can invoke the concept of "Definition" as some sort of arbiter.
So no, you dont get to determine relevance since both words are relevant, since they both reference the word, any other take doesnt make sense. I wouldn't refer to a potato in the argument since a potato and transgender or trans are disconnected to some degrees.

You shouldn't hide your hypocrisy just because you cant be adult enough to acknowledge it. I dont need any rest, and the desperation is cemented in my mind, as you lack even the integrity to continue this conversation in public.

You might want to get some rest and come back and reread what you have written. Any idea of "desperation" is a figment of your imagination as well as you perception of hypocrisy and inconsistency.

You claim you will refer to people by whatever they want to be referred as regardless of definitions and that somehow makes you sensible. So if A few people do not want to be referred to as people anymore than you would no longer be sensible if you refereed to them as people. Think about how what you said plays out in larger society. We can no longer call anything anything anymore because someone somewhere might want to be called something else.. yea. that is going to work real well. This is ridiculous. If all you are here to argue about is whether or not it is okay to call a person a person because they do not want to be called a person any longer, than there isn't anything constructive to be had in this conversation with you and I bid you good day.

No Lil Devils, this isnt about your example of people not wanted to be referred to as people, because the concept of person is surrounded by biology. The concept of gender identity is not proven to be. The key word is IDENTITY. Heck, your example is the worst of them all, it ruins your entire argument. We respect people more than other things, that is why we value human life over a dogs or a tree. To not, with all honesty, refer to a person as a person is LITERALLY inhuman, and what they did to slaves. It is HUMANE to however let someone live their life with agency and self determination and allow them to make their own choices, like what to identify as.

I am NOT arguing whether it is ok to call a person a person, if they do not want to be called one. I AM arguing your hypocritical standards on transgender people. You already allow for two spirited people in your concept of identities, but cant seem to grasp that some people might not identify as such. The fact that you can see this fills me with confusing and vigor, and makes me inspired to edify you so you dont make such silly missteps. You lack this foresight and as i have done before i will do now and point it out, continually, even if you lack the will to argue your point.

I hope you can understand this concept, at one point i actually respected your opinion. I am glad to demonstrate how wrong i was in doing so. It is sad.

 

[peruvianskys]

I guess my feelings boil down to this: When women are abused, raped, or otherwise physically harmed, the perpetrator is nine times out of ten (actually far more often) going to have a penis. Why this is, you can debate, but the fact is there.

All concepts of identity, gender, etc. aside, I think all females - people born with vulvas, ovaries, breasts, etc. - have the right to certain spaces away from males - people born with penises, testicles, prostates, etc - because they are statistically far, far more likely to both experience violence in those spaces or have histories of violence that could be triggered in those spaces. Any transwoman who does not understand or respect that has no place being anywhere around women anyway.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Is it reasonable to assume all trans people are passable?
Yes it is, because I (or you, or anyone) shouldn't get to tell another person what is passable as female or male.

In this context, doesn't the term "passable" refer to being well enough disguised to pass as the sex opposite of your birth without people knowing it by looking at you? Like, the super good make-up in Cloud Atlas where they bend the actor's race and whatnot. If someone who had never known or seen anything involving that actor watched JUST that part of the movie, and could not tell by looking, that actor was "passable" as Asian, or whatever. Being passable is not up for debate as far as I know, it is not like you could have a discussion debating it with someone, they just roll their perception score against lets say.... your charisma score. If you win you are passable.

Is it reasonable to assume all people are educated in the complex minutia of trans life?
In the USA no because their education is a joke. But yes, translife should be part of sex ed in all schools worldwide as far as I'm concerned.

I believe we agree here, more learning for children is almost always better. As long as it is not some kinda propaganda and really focuses on facts. I differ from your opinion when you jump to the words "worldwide". There are some places in the world where.... well Maybe they should just teach irrigation or something to start with.

The reason I asked this particular question in the first place, is because about a year and a half ago I would have never even considered the possibility of someone being offended by misused pronouns. It is something that takes time to sink in, basic pronouns are like muscle memory for people. Only after being exposed to so many of the trans people who seem to populate a portion of the escapist forums, do I know some people take them super serious and its a big deal to them. If a year and a half ago I met a trans person, I would not have devoted any thought to making sure I got their pronoun right.

Is it reasonable to assume she has even ever seen a trans woman before?
Well we don't have to assume this one... She HAS seen a transwoman Should it matter if she hadn't?

Yes of course it matters if she has seen a trans women BEFORE the incident. Not to offend, (although im sure I will) But some trans people look very different from everyone else this woman may have ever seen before. So again I am trying to see things from her perspective here, she has never seen anyone like this before, she perceives them as male, and they walk in on her while she is presumably in some state of undress. Negative reaction, right off the bat. Had she already seen someone like that before, she may have had time to consider or learn things and would know she does not need to be scared of them. She may still feel uncomfortable, but at most (like my girlfried, although with bathrooms) would likely wait for them to leave before tending to her business.

Is it reasonable to assume she can tell the difference without a name tag that says "hi i am trans" and an hour of conversation?
And this should matter why? She is in there to change to workout at a gym. Not to pick up people. That seems to be a common theme in this thread, that some people are intimiated by changing infront of someone of the other sex, well guess what, the other person is there for one purpose, to change in order to workout as well. They aren't there to oogle you.

Well... if I had to share a changing room with females at some point, I for one would be doing a bit of oogling. I would oogle the shit out of those boobies, probably why I should not be allowed in there. I believe your argument here relies on being able to divine someone else's motivations, attitudes and sensibilities without any prior knowledge about that person.... not reasonable.

This world is getting stranger and stranger. I have met multiple furries, I have never even seen a trans person outside of media (it is possible I have seen one that is completely passable, but i find the hands to be dead giveaways in media). With such a tiny minority, it is not reasonable to expect everyone to understand you. The only reason i know anything about trans people is i took a specific interest because I found it fascinating.

You say you've never even seen a transperson outside of media and I have one simple question for you. How do you know that? Unless you ask every person you meet if they are trans (which I doubt because you don't seem like an asshole) you may work besides a trans person and simply not know, because as @PaulH pointed out, many live their entire lives 'in-stealth'.

I admit there is a possibility that I could have seen a trans person that was totally passable. But even in that hypathetical event, as it relates to this discussion, would said meeting prepare me in any way for my meeting with a not-passable trans person? No it would not, because she was passable, and so I learn nothing about how to behave with relation to trans people. However I would have accidentally acted correctly and treated her like a cis woman..... that is correct right?

 

[VanQ]

Oh yeah she's pretty for sure. And I just posted because she's probably the most well known attractive trans woman. I'm jealous even though I "pass" like her just fine. As I said earlier I haven't had someone call me male (or anything related to it) in 10ish years. I've been told I'm pretty as well, but I don't see it. (ugh at body issues for women). But yeah I elected to have man bits as well and I have to use the women's rest room. If I went into the men's room I'd get harassed, yelled at, hit on, or sexually assaulted.

I did scroll back and see the pictures of the trans woman at planet fitness. To be honest, I don't necessarily see that it's 100% obvious she's trans (some of the pictures she does looks trans, some she just likes a bigger woman). A lot of guys will say "could totally tell she's a dude" when they already know she's trans, partially as a "I wouldn't get tricked, muahaha" type thing. There are online quizzes that try to pick out which women are cis and which women are trans, believe me it's harder than you think to get 100% (some of them use very rude terminology that others, especially trans would find offensive). I only do this because I'm fine with self deprecation.

And thanks for the welcome

That doesn't sound like self-deprecation to me. It sounds like being easy going, having a sense of humour and being self aware enough to laugh at oneself. Some thing that a lot of people simply don't have, especially on the internet. It's a good quality to have, to be able to not take every word you see on the internet at face value or as a personal attack.

 

[Diaconu Cristian]

The reason we have different lockers for different genders is because women wouldn't feel safe to change with men around (men would probably not give a rats ass about it).

Who cares? After all, some children won't have anything to eat over the next few days, so nobody owes these women anything. And of course, the fallacy of relative privation is a perfectly valid argumentative technique, right?

Well you are correct. People should not frown upon undressing in front of each other (women or man). The are a lot of college campuses that have shared bathrooms and showers in my country (they still have individual showers as well, but there is a high chance of seeing a naked guy strolling around anyway) and people simply get used to it and honestly it really shouldn't matter.

My argument was simply that most people think society owes them a lot more than it should. The children example was just that, an extreme example. Being a trans with guy parts does not give you the right to be special in society. You can be special in private and do your own thing(you have that right as everybody else does), but when using toilets and locker rooms, you are qualified as a man.

And my sentence was simply an affirmation not whether I believe having separate changing rooms or not is good
Also, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I do not even think you read what I wrote, the west sees people as broken if they do not fit into their idea of "woman and man" and thus that is the problem with how they treat two spirits in Western society.

First off. I am not 'two spirit'. If you keep persisting with calling all trans* people as such you're doing a disservice to the basic values of humanism. People are not boxes because there is no universal human template of normality. If someone tells you who they are, particularly given an alien culture, stop pretending you think you know who they are and how they identify. You don't ... either prove there is a standard, universal human.... or recognise one's cognition is highly individual due to both forces of nature and nurture.

Listen to people, don't pretend you get to insert your rhetoric and culture into someone's life when they have (like me) told you yours do not encompass them.

You refuse to address that is the primary issue.
"Talk to a few"? REALLY? You actually go around telling people that when they tell you that society should not pressure people to change who they are and make baseless assumptions about them? What broken ideas?

Because I know what I'm talking about, I have explained multiple times how I felt and the philosophy at play.... and yet you keep pretending this doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Please do tell, you did not even bother reading what you are responding to. Western society treats two spirits as broken and needing to be fixed, and you are telling me that is a broken idea? LMAO that is absurd. You make unfounded assumptions. Just because something applies to you does not mean it applies to everyone.

You're absolutely right. So how about if you listen to me telling you how your narrative didn't fit with me or many of my trans* friends?

You are not even considering things from any view other than your own and are behaving completely close minded in how these things affect others who do not share your sentiment.Instead you prematurely judge them.

Because you haven't yet written any proofs to your ideas. Just esentialist nonsense even while turning around and saying that my worldview of being trans is bad for attempting to marry libertarianism in the formation of identity.

Are you mad?

It isn't like you are the only person here born that enjoyed things that were considered " only for the opposite sex" or that is intimate with their own sex, or that has emotions that are considered not appropriate for your own sex. Think about it for a second, maybe you will start to see things for what they are instead of blowing it out.

Yea go ahead, put your hands on your hips and spout " I'm trans and everyone who disagrees with could not possibly understand." BS some more without even knowing Anything about the people you are speaking to.

Spoiler

If you bothered to look through my post history, you would see:
1)I am bisexual and have had sexual activity with both males and females.
2) Almost all of my hobbies, likes and dislikes are what are considered appropriate for the opposite sex, not my sex.
3)I wear both male and female attire.
4)I was told from a young age I have personality traits associated with the opposite sex.
.. This just from my post history on this site alone, yet, I need to go " talk to a few" eh?
Get over yourself.
I have never really worried about it either way though. "I am as I am" and never felt a need to classify myself or change myself. I like my body, I like my interests and I am not the one who has a problem here, it is western society that thinks I should have to choose a toy isle as a kid, not me. I am not so "stuck on myself" that I obsess over every little thing about me, physically or emotionally. I do not put much thought into the things that I see as non important and just like what I do. I look at it as life being too short to worry about petty things.

And your identity has fuck all to do with me. Enjoy mulling that over. My existence is innately awkward. Like every other person on the planet... eother prove that I am exactly like another, or stop trying to police the definitions of personal expression.

Also, Dr. Paul McHugh's studies were cherry picked and considered poor sources of transgender identity research and study by many of his peers. I should note the growing body of neuroscience, genetics and the nature of human identity... basic libertarian and humanist philosophy finding great support within concurrent genetic research, being proofs of multifaceted transgender identity and the necessity of multiple treatment *options* allowable to trans patients. To help facilitate marriage between mind, brain and body. The good of hrt and surgery for those who seek it after adequate exploration of the self.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's my point thought. If cis women don't feel comfortable with a MALE body (regardless of mental gender) in their changing room then they don't feel safe. If cis men don't feel comfortable with a male body that has a FEMALE mind in their changing room then they don't feel safe. If trans people feel like they're not welcome anywhere then they don't feel safe.

No, the problem isn't whether or not trans people feel safe, it is whether they actually are safe.

Allowing trans women into women's space might make some cis women feel unsafe, as they might hypothetically be assault by trans women. Only, this is a thing that doesn't tend to happen in the real world at all.

Force trans women into men's space will make them unsafe, as trans women are constantly assaulted when this happens.

The irony here is palpable.

Given your next statement, yes. Just not in the way you mean.

I don't treat "women like women" or men like men, I treat people like people until they give me a reason not to.

...

Anyway, the fact that you're a woman or a man in mind doesn't change the genitalia on your body. In a place where you get naked, but more importantly see others naked, that matters.

You can have one or the other. You can not concern yourself with differences, and treat everyone exactly the same, or you can decide that differences in genitals are important. Not both.

But like I was trying to say, as of now there is no "right" answer. We can let them in the changing room they identify with, the one they physically are, or not let then in any. All options suck

The "problem" with letting trans women into women's locker rooms is that there are some cis women that don't want them there.

The problems with making them use the other one is that they run the serious risk of assault. One of these is an actual problem. People have the right to be safe. People do not have the right to feel safe by excluding groups they happen not to want around.

why not try to think of a better one? I think the best long term solution is to go the unisex route and have individual stalls for changing and require clothing on at all times otherwise.

Not practical, and it's only just trying to paper over discrimination anyway. Though, if you mean until the discrimination goes away for other reasons, that sounds more reasonable.