Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yeah, see here is what I was talking about. You may not exist to answer my questions, but as a human being I exist to ask them. Hostility is one way to beget submission, but there's always a chance things will escalate.

Not a fan of passive aggressive death threats like "die on your own sword", "hill you want to die on", or "have fun in hell", by the way.

No, you provably do not exist to ask questions. Existence is self-evident and we are doomed to be free. Secondly, it's not hostility. Thirdly, 'fall on one's sword' is not a death threat. It's a saying. It represents resigning oneself to defeat. Me ignoring you or telling you to go away is not some profound infliction upon your existence. It's not hiostility to say; "Look, sorry. Whatever it is you're selling I'm not really interested." I am allowed to assume the worst, because the worst can happen when people just approach you out of the blue and begin asking questions that have lead to harmful consequences.

You are putting me in a place where I am forced to respond when there is good reason that if I acquiesce can lead to harm. I am then allowed to weigh my options and consider the best course of action. I do not exist to answer your questions ... and to pretend that harm mitigation represents 'hostility' is grossly unfair. You are then telling me; "You have to answer, without fail. Or be seen as hostile or the wrongful party." You're transforming this where someone is considered morally ambiguous at best, simply by avoiding to answer a question because ..... some random person on the street demands of me time and information I'm not willing to share?

What medieval reasoning is that? Pretending that harm evasion is 'hostility' is ignoring increased harm being levelled upon trans people. It's also shifting blame for your act of demanding another's time. If you think that is an inappropriate, or 'hostile' response to someone who just approaches you randomly on some crowded city street then perhaps it's not a case of being hostile but you being sheltered and assuming trans people are also. You'll forgive me if I then tell you that random strangers accosting me out of the blue hasn't lead to favourable outcomes. Why then I am the wrongful party by trying to avoid said situatiuons?

Should I unnecessarily suffer so as to accept the world's questions? If you think so, then the defect lies with you. I am owned by no one ... and I would posit any who should think so as the hostile party.

 

[Politrukk]

And it's factually incorrect. I don't support weakening the word "insane" when there are tons of other non-diagnostic terms a person can use instead.

I think you are confusing clinically insane with the normal usage of the word insane.


Edit(not a reply to you JimB but to the recent replies in the thread):

People think transgenders should have a holiday?

Why?

I've always found gay-pride odd (because it singles you out for being gay and deals with some contrived propoganda instead of everyone just getting along).

The mere fact that you'd want a holiday specifically for transpeople sort of does adress the entire special-snowflake comment people are making now doesn't it?

Not that I am of the opinion that the deaths of activists or people in general should not be remembered, but an actual holiday?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Edit(not a reply to you JimB but to the recent replies in the thread):

People think transgenders should have a holiday?

Why?

I've always found gay-pride odd (because it singles you out for being gay and deals with some contrived propoganda instead of everyone just getting along).

The mere fact that you'd want a holiday specifically for transpeople sort of does adress the entire special-snowflake comment people are making now doesn't it?

Not that I am of the opinion that the deaths of activists or people in general should not be remembered, but an actual holiday?

I just brought up the death of an activist during a speech, because that's why in the US we have Martin Luther King jr. day. More in jest than for actually wanting a holiday. Because when you come right down to it, I doubt you'd find many in the trans community who'd want a holiday. The whole discussion came up over a comparison of Jewish in a country not having their holidays officially recognized by that Government, in comparison to legal protections being offered to trans folk. The argument offered specifically being because trans folk are be a small minority being a valid reason to deny us legal protections, which is exactly backwards for how legal protections for minorities tends to work. So it's not about wanting a transgender centric holiday, it's about poking a hole in someone's argument.

Also pride day has always been weird, I've personally seen trans folk turned away from pride parades, then the trans pride flag given to drag queens and kings, who are most assuredly not trans.

On a side note, if you want to refer to transgender people as a group, trans folk tends to be a good short hand, "transgenders" sounds a bit... Demeaning, I guess is a good word for it.

 

[Batou667]

Also I didn't correct it before, neither did you @1981, but it's forgivable. Still @Batou667 referred to the person in the article as a male several times over, that person is a trans woman so, so in this case referring to her as a male is again patently wrong. It's a rejection of gender identity, thus inherently cissexist.

As skeptical as I am, I generally refer to trans people using their preferred pronouns as a courtesy. I hold opinions which to you probably seem old-fashioned and undesirable but I seldom set out to offend. The person in the article however seems to be a self-evident crank, fetishist or just plain nutcase, and, yes, I do reject his self-proclaimed identity. He's not a six year old girl. I think you're being far too charitable in suggesting they're a real transwoman.

Do they need a full, functional set?

I know this was addressed to Lictor Face, but this train of argument has never held water with me. Classification is based upon generalities, and the existence of exceptions doesn't magically explode the rule, much less "prove" a spectrum.

For example, it would be completely reasonable to define cats as having four legs. Some aggrieved cat-owner could then march up brandishing their three-legged cat that had been in a road accident and say "What, so you're saying this isn't a cat any more, huh? He doesn't fit the criteria any more? That's an erasure of his cathood!" Nobody is reasonably suggesting that possessing exactly four legs is key to being a cat. What they are saying is that "cats have four legs" is a generality so frequently observed to be correct that it may as well be called a defining feature.

Likewise with humans. There's a clear and universally recognised set of characteristics associated with males and likewise females. Those characteristics share some overlap and individual characteristics may sometimes be altered (like extra chromosomes) or not present at all (like infertility). Anybody invoking these rare exceptions as justification for declaring the gender binary to be dead is, in my opinion, clutching at straws.

Your prior statement relied on false equivalence. Are you saying you feel false equivalence is indicative of "empirical reality?"

I feel you're trying to "win" this exchange based on semantics rather than engaging with the actual substance of what I'm saying.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Also I didn't correct it before, neither did you @1981, but it's forgivable. Still @Batou667 referred to the person in the article as a male several times over, that person is a trans woman so, so in this case referring to her as a male is again patently wrong. It's a rejection of gender identity, thus inherently cissexist.

As skeptical as I am, I generally refer to trans people using their preferred pronouns as a courtesy. I hold opinions which to you probably seem old-fashioned and undesirable but I seldom set out to offend. The person in the article however seems to be a self-evident crank, fetishist or just plain nutcase, and, yes, I do reject his self-proclaimed identity. He's not a six year old girl. I think you're being far too charitable in suggesting they're a real transwoman.

I really don't think it's about charity here. After actually giving the article a more thorough look, there are two things going on in this that the absurd headline doesn't cover. First of all the trans woman in question is doing age regression as a sort of therapy, granted she did go through a very traumatic event, losing her family, over being trans. This is what in my mind backs up her being trans too, she was told "stop being trans or leave", so she left, that kind of dedication is not something you get from a cisgender person pretending to be trans. I'll also put this in, age regression and age play aren't uncommon things in the trans community, most trans folk are basically robbed of their childhoods by having to conform to being the wrong gender. So it's not at all uncommon for trans folk later in life to try and recapture childhood.

Do they need a full, functional set?

I know this was addressed to Lictor Face, but this train of argument has never held water with me. Classification is based upon generalities, and the existence of exceptions doesn't magically explode the rule, much less "prove" a spectrum.

For example, it would be completely reasonable to define cats as having four legs. Some aggrieved cat-owner could then march up brandishing their three-legged cat that had been in a road accident and say "What, so you're saying this isn't a cat any more, huh? He doesn't fit the criteria any more? That's an erasure of his cathood!" Nobody is reasonably suggesting that possessing exactly four legs is key to being a cat. What they are saying is that "cats have four legs" is a generality so frequently observed to be correct that it may as well be called a defining feature.

Likewise with humans. There's a clear and universally recognised set of characteristics associated with males and likewise females. Those characteristics share some overlap and individual characteristics may sometimes be altered (like extra chromosomes) or not present at all (like infertility). Anybody invoking these rare exceptions as justification for declaring the gender binary to be dead is, in my opinion, clutching at straws.

That clear and universally recognized set of characteristics is all secondary stuff though, it's all predicated on secondary sexual traits(which can be faked), along with gender presentation, and observable gender role. If you're talking about primary anatomy or genetics, well primary sexual anatomy can be altered surgically to appear as the opposite sex's, and nobody walks around with a DNA lab. Really when it comes down to social situations, you're probably not gonna know, further more it's not your business. Medically speaking that's between a trans person and their doctor(s). Intimately speaking, that's only your business if the person you're going out with is a trans person, in which chase they'd probably tell you before any intimate situation came up.

Honestly gender and sex are not the same thing, they're linked, but not the same thing, thats why gender refers to identity, role, presentation, and gender rules, it isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. Because everyone breaks gender rules when it comes to presentation, role, mannerism, and some in identity. Some people identify outside the binary of physical sexes, there are people who identify as both genders for example, or identify as neither having what is essentially a lack of a gender identity. Further more some people identify as the opposite gender as a third gender, like the Hijra of India. Gender is a complex mental-neurological state, it exists independent of someone's biological sex, the two are usually linked, but not always, and gender means different things to different people.

What I mean by that is, ask any 10 men what it means to be a man, you'll get 10 different answers, same if you ask any 10 women. Gender is mental state and identity, biological sex is the physicality, but what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman, is self definition, nothing more. Because we're unlike other animals, we actively identify by gender standards, most other animals it's eat, sleep, reproduce, humans are much more than that. Other animals only biological sex matters, because it's just for reproduction, humans are different, we have a value of gender as a means of identity that goes along with biological sex.

 

[Lictor Face]

That's the problem, trans folk will never be a majority. So I have a question, does your country have gay rights, like same-sex marriage? Because if not then they're not portecting the basic human rights of citizens in the minority. Trans folk don't have official holidays. That doesn't mean we should have our rights and our identities put aside and be marginalized. If you don't specifically protect marginalized minority groups, they get discriminated against, period.

We forbid polygamy too, there's a law against it, that means Mormonism is unpracticable in this country. Hell Mormons that practice polygamy are persecuted and charged in the court of law accordingly.They're a minority, and their right to practice their religious customs is already being trampled on.

It might sound foreign to you, but the country I live in are not big on human rights in general. They're very practical like that. We persecute people who break the law, regardless of religious or cultural reasoning. We hang drug traffickers without appeal. Put it bluntly. Unless homosexuals and transgenders reach a sizable population percentage, they have basic and limited rights.

Now we're going off topic, but I feel that if they know that they are not the majority (and probably never will be) they should stop expecting recognition by the state and country in matters beyond basic human rights and citizenry (in my country at least). If it ain't practical, it ain't being done, countries are practical like that. We're not big on personal rights here, so comparing us to countries like America is out of the question really.

Nope, our country doesn't have gay rights or same sex marriage. But I think I understand why they don't. A vast majority of our population disapproves of it. To implement it would mean offending that vast majority. Given that homosexuals aren't a sizable population. It doesn't matter, they don't matter. Votes matter! As do harmony and general happiness.

Hell the government is secular, and individuals have stated a few times that they don't particularly care about homosexuals being able to marry or not. But since it will piss off the majority of the population, it isn't done. They're logical like that.

Call it unethical, but that's how it has always been done here. And we're still succeeding in all areas but freedom of speech (which is overrated anyway)

 

[1981]

Nope, our country doesn't have gay rights or same sex marriage. But I think I understand why they don't. A vast majority of our population disapproves of it. To implement it would mean offending that vast majority. Given that homosexuals aren't a sizable population. It doesn't matter, they don't matter. Votes matter! As do harmony and general happiness.

People who aren't civilized enough to allow others the same rights they have should be excluded from decision-making.

I've always found gay-pride odd (because it singles you out for being gay and deals with some contrived propoganda instead of everyone just getting along).

It is silly if it's taken out of context. The context is that gays are told they should be ashamed of who they are. That can only be countered by proclaiming pride.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nope, our country doesn't have gay rights or same sex marriage. But I think I understand why they don't. A vast majority of our population disapproves of it. To implement it would mean offending that vast majority.

That same line of reasoning would seem to condone America's WW2 internment camps. I mean, by the logic of not wanting to piss off the majority, why shouldn't they lock Asians (or hated group du jour) to appease the populace?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That's the problem, trans folk will never be a majority. So I have a question, does your country have gay rights, like same-sex marriage? Because if not then they're not portecting the basic human rights of citizens in the minority. Trans folk don't have official holidays. That doesn't mean we should have our rights and our identities put aside and be marginalized. If you don't specifically protect marginalized minority groups, they get discriminated against, period.

We forbid polygamy too, there's a law against it, that means Mormonism is unpracticable in this country. Hell Mormons that practice polygamy are persecuted and charged in the court of law accordingly.They're a minority, and their right to practice their religious customs is already being trampled on.

My father was Mormon for the first 20 years of his life. So I can tell you that calling Mormonism impossible to practice without polygamy is absolutely bullshit, if polygamy is illegal the Church forbids it to it's faithful. It's a church commandment to Mormons to be law abiding citizens and for the Church of Latter Day Saints to respect the law of the land. For instance, in Utah territory women had the right to vote before the US allowed it, the Church and Territory gave that up so they could become a state and stop losing territory. Very few Mormons even approve of polygamy in the modern setting, because it was meant to help provide a secure future, with modern survival rates, that's not an issue anymore. Also the LDS is trying to distance itself from Fundamental LDS, who they do not see as being Mormons and even working against the church doctrine.

It might sound foreign to you, but the country I live in are not big on human rights in general. They're very practical like that. We persecute people who break the law, regardless of religious or cultural reasoning. We hang drug traffickers without appeal. Put it bluntly. Unless homosexuals and transgenders reach a sizable population percentage, they have basic and limited rights.

That's not practicality, it's weak justification for fascistic tyranny, which for what it sounds like, is normal to you folks. You can't justify it as logical, or practical, but if it's normal and people are content with it, then that's enough justification as far as the population and government are concerned. Just don't be surprised when it inevitably breaks, because people were foolish enough to elect a despot into office.

Now we're going off topic, but I feel that if they know that they are not the majority (and probably never will be) they should stop expecting recognition by the state and country in matters beyond basic human rights and citizenry (in my country at least). If it ain't practical, it ain't being done, countries are practical like that. We're not big on personal rights here, so comparing us to countries like America is out of the question really.

Basic human rights when trans folk are concerned, it's considered essential that we're allowed to transition and be recognized as the gender we transition to. Even if that recognition requires a referral notice from a qualified medical professional. So we can do things like change our names and legal gender on documentation.

Nope, our country doesn't have gay rights or same sex marriage. But I think I understand why they don't. A vast majority of our population disapproves of it. To implement it would mean offending that vast majority. Given that homosexuals aren't a sizable population. It doesn't matter, they don't matter. Votes matter! As do harmony and general happiness.

Hell the government is secular, and individuals have stated a few times that they don't particularly care about homosexuals being able to marry or not. But since it will piss off the majority of the population, it isn't done. They're logical like that.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, if marriage in your society has a legal advantage, it's considered a base human right. Which means it's illogical pandering, not a logical stance. You're not making for harmony and general happiness either as you're persecuting a group for being different by denying them something the majority gets without question.

Call it unethical, but that's how it has always been done here. And we're still succeeding in all areas but freedom of speech (which is overrated anyway)

I don't call it unethical, what I do call it is weak justification for limiting human rights to minority groups who are already marginalized. Some people call that logic, I call it bullshit, because you're not offering basic protections to groups who are going to be discriminated against. Really what it comes down to there is pandering to hate mongers, which is politically smart for politicians, but at the same time it's also predicated on weak justification to be discriminatory. If it's normal for you and the citizenry are content with it, then it's not going change. On the other hand trying to weakly justify it with logic and practicality, that doesn't fly even in the slightest. Really because of your Government's strict nature on such things, it wouldn't be surprising if an extremist party took over and started a cleansing of the "impure" and "undesirable" elements of your society..

On a side note, it sounds like you live in Singapore, or similar.

 

[Lictor Face]

My father was Mormon for the first 20 years of his life. So I can tell you that calling Mormonism impossible to practice without polygamy is absolutely bullshit, if polygamy is illegal the Church forbids it to it's faithful. It's a church commandment to Mormons to be law abiding citizens and for the Church of Latter Day Saints to respect the law of the land. For instance, in Utah territory women had the right to vote before the US allowed it, the Church and Territory gave that up so they could become a state and stop losing territory. Very few Mormons even approve of polygamy in the modern setting, because it was meant to help provide a secure future, with modern survival rates, that's not an issue anymore. Also the LDS is trying to distance itself from Fundamental LDS, who they do not see as being Mormons and even working against the church doctrine.

Fair enough. I didn't know that.

That's not practicality, it's weak justification for fascistic tyranny, which for what it sounds like, is normal to you folks. You can't justify it as logical, or practical, but if it's normal and people are content with it, then that's enough justification as far as the population and government are concerned. Just don't be surprised when it inevitably breaks, because people were foolish enough to elect a despot into office.

No political system is full proof, so I can live with that. The most effective political system is a benevolent dictatorship afterall, like the Kallipolis but less extreme. And even so, the Kallipolis traded prosperity, development, education and all types of freedom to narrow down its weaknesses to one.

If the shoe fits and all that.

Basic human rights when trans folk are concerned, it's considered essential that we're allowed to transition and be recognized as the gender we transition to. Even if that recognition requires a referral notice from a qualified medical professional. So we can do things like change our names and legal gender on documentation.

Oh yeah administrative things like that goes without saying. No problems or issues there. Its easier for everybody.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, if marriage in your society has a legal advantage, it's considered a base human right. Which means it's illogical pandering, not a logical stance. You're not making for harmony and general happiness either as you're persecuting a group for being different by denying them something the majority gets without question.

I don't think its illogical, logical pandering certainly. Tt is very much logical to not offend the majority for the sake of the minority. But other than that yeah, it is pandering.

Again, even if the said minority is lacking in the harmony and general happiness department, they are unfortunately not enough of them to pose a problem that say, legalizing gay marriage, might cause. The scales aren't balanced.

I don't call it unethical, what I do call it is weak justification for limiting human rights to minority groups who are already marginalized. Some people call that logic, I call it bullshit, because you're not offering basic protections to groups who are going to be discriminated against. Really what it comes down to there is pandering to hate mongers, which is politically smart for politicians, but at the same time it's also predicated on weak justification to be discriminatory. If it's normal for you and the citizenry are content with it, then it's not going change. On the other hand trying to weakly justify it with logic and practicality, that doesn't fly even in the slightest. Really because of your Government's strict nature on such things, it wouldn't be surprising if an extremist party took over and started a cleansing of the "impure" and "undesirable" elements of your society..

On a side note, it sounds like you live in Singapore, or similar.

Hole in one! Yes I do live in SEA's very own tiny grim utopia. As for the rest of the points.

Yup, that's about it really, can't argue against what's true. Though I disagree with the hate mongering part for being overly dramatic, its not so much folk hate or despise transgenders or gay marriage or anything, its just the effects of a conservative culture that pretty much most of south-east asia has, as well as religious incompatibility. There's no lynching or outright discrimination (refusal of education or jobs or any of that sort of thing) You might be right about the weak justification, but hey, if the shoe fits. Politicians gotta politik.

Governments are all about weak justifications, to do otherwise would probably piss off every activist from one pole to the other even more than they already are.

 

[Lictor Face]

That same line of reasoning would seem to condone America's WW2 internment camps. I mean, by the logic of not wanting to piss off the majority, why shouldn't they lock Asians (or hated group du jour) to appease the populace?

A grim but not entirely incorrect comparison. I'm pretty sure if our leaders were in the same situation as the american gov was during world war 2, they'd probably do the same.

 

[Lictor Face]

People who aren't civilized enough to allow others the same rights they have should be excluded from decision-making.

Oh you wound my national pride sir.

But to respond to this will open up an entirely new and largely irrelevant can of worms to the topic of "Gender recogntion offence" that this thread is meant for.

But here's a clue.

I personally feel that concern for human rights can be an obstacle to making the best possible decision for the state and country.

You'll probably figure out where I stand eventually.

 

[1981]

Snippety

That comes up every now and then -- people claim to have more important issues than human rights. That's incorrect. Their issues are not more important, just more basic. Granted, if you're at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg], the top may seem small. But hitting rock bottom is a good sign to stop digging and start climbing.

 

[Silvanus]

I personally feel that concern for human rights can be an obstacle to making the best possible decision for the state and country.

One wonders what the purpose of state and country is, if not to protect and provide for the humans who live in it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That's not practicality, it's weak justification for fascistic tyranny, which for what it sounds like, is normal to you folks. You can't justify it as logical, or practical, but if it's normal and people are content with it, then that's enough justification as far as the population and government are concerned. Just don't be surprised when it inevitably breaks, because people were foolish enough to elect a despot into office.

No political system is full proof, so I can live with that. The most effective political system is a benevolent dictatorship afterall, like the Kallipolis but less extreme. And even so, the Kallipolis traded prosperity, development, education and all types of freedom to narrow down its weaknesses to one.

If the shoe fits and all that.

The problem with a dictatorship, especially a benevolent one, is that it only lasts as long as a dictator. I disagree anyways, the most effective government and political system is a slow moving representative republic, which the US had at one point, but our civil war did away with that. The original idea being that you can vote the current legislatures(Senate and House of Representitves) and executive officer(President) out of office before they do much damage.

Wars have changed that, as has communism from both the pro and con side. But in the larger scheme our government is doing well for being both young, along with having ridden out several huge civil shifts in the world. Like the industrial revolution. Too bad we're stuck in a populist environment with tough generational problems that our politicians can't fix all at once.

Basic human rights when trans folk are concerned, it's considered essential that we're allowed to transition and be recognized as the gender we transition to. Even if that recognition requires a referral notice from a qualified medical professional. So we can do things like change our names and legal gender on documentation.

Oh yeah administrative things like that goes without saying. No problems or issues there. Its easier for everybody.

So where you live you can shift gender legally without much issue? South East Asia seems a bit questionable in that respect if you don't mind my saying, because Thailand has been the bastion of availability of SRS[footnote]Sexual Reassignment Surgery[/footnote] for a long time for most of us in the west. There is no shortage of horror stories and people who just turn up missing.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, if marriage in your society has a legal advantage, it's considered a base human right. Which means it's illogical pandering, not a logical stance. You're not making for harmony and general happiness either as you're persecuting a group for being different by denying them something the majority gets without question.

I don't think its illogical, logical pandering certainly. Tt is very much logical to not offend the majority for the sake of the minority. But other than that yeah, it is pandering.

Again, even if the said minority is lacking in the harmony and general happiness department, they are unfortunately not enough of them to pose a problem that say, legalizing gay marriage, might cause. The scales aren't balanced.

The scales never are balanced when you're talking about certain minorities, be they religious, racial, sexuality based, or gender identity based. That's where the twin specters of bigotry and discrimination thrive, when the majority can oppress the minority. That's where the harmony breaks down and you end up with impoverished, victimized classes.

It is illogical to appease the majority constantly, because it's the government's duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, minorities cannot protect themselves. This is exactly why the US had such a strong civil rights movement, our individual liberties allowed blacks to rise up decrying their unfair treatment, while allowing the white majority to learn of the wrongs and support their fellow citizens.

It's very logical to offend the majority, because they're the ones who can shrug it off once the initial political shit storm dies down. Minorities communities cannot just shrug off consistent systemic oppression.

I don't call it unethical, what I do call it is weak justification for limiting human rights to minority groups who are already marginalized. Some people call that logic, I call it bullshit, because you're not offering basic protections to groups who are going to be discriminated against. Really what it comes down to there is pandering to hate mongers, which is politically smart for politicians, but at the same time it's also predicated on weak justification to be discriminatory. If it's normal for you and the citizenry are content with it, then it's not going change. On the other hand trying to weakly justify it with logic and practicality, that doesn't fly even in the slightest. Really because of your Government's strict nature on such things, it wouldn't be surprising if an extremist party took over and started a cleansing of the "impure" and "undesirable" elements of your society..

On a side note, it sounds like you live in Singapore, or similar.

Hole in one! Yes I do live in SEA's very own tiny grim utopia. As for the rest of the points.

Yup, that's about it really, can't argue against what's true. Though I disagree with the hate mongering part for being overly dramatic, its not so much folk hate or despise transgenders or gay marriage or anything, its just the effects of a conservative culture that pretty much most of south-east asia has, as well as religious incompatibility. There's no lynching or outright discrimination (refusal of education or jobs or any of that sort of thing) You might be right about the weak justification, but hey, if the shoe fits. Politicians gotta politik.

Governments are all about weak justifications, to do otherwise would probably piss off every activist from one pole to the other even more than they already are.

Unfortunately you say the hate mongering doesn't exist, it does, how many trans folk and homosexual folk end up as prostitution slaves in SEA is nothing to sneeze at. Taking how bad it is in the west, because of the religious intolerance and the coverups the SEA governments perpetrate, it's not a stretch to say it's orders of magnitudes worse. Less oversight, less protection, and less awareness, means that vulnerable marginalized minorities get treated worse by magnitudes of order. You only need look at the US during slavery and Jim Crow, Nazi Germany in general, and so on, the less it's exposed, the less it's fought against, the worse it is. The thing is, politik is foreign policy, not domestic policy and politics. Really the more you pander to the mob, the more the mob demands, the mob in this case being being the majority.

Basically the US wouldn't be where it is without our being able to tell the majority to shut up and compromise.

 

[Batou667]

I'll also put this in, age regression and age play aren't uncommon things in the trans community, most trans folk are basically robbed of their childhoods by having to conform to being the wrong gender. So it's not at all uncommon for trans folk later in life to try and recapture childhood.

OK, but we're on thin ice here. If the age regression is considered therapy or roleplay, what does that make the female aspect of their persona?

ask any 10 men what it means to be a man, you'll get 10 different answers, same if you ask any 10 women. Gender is mental state and identity, biological sex is the physicality, but what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman, is self definition, nothing more.

Just because there's subjectivity involved doesn't mean definitions are void or useless. A category can be well-defined and also almost completely subjective. I mean, ask 10 people what it means to be a parent, or American, or a human even, and you'll get a broad range of responses.

 

[01189998819991197253]

I personally feel that concern for human rights can be an obstacle to making the best possible decision for the state and country.

One wonders what the purpose of state and country is, if not to protect and provide for the humans who live in it.

I think the implication with people who think like Lictor appears to, would be that the country provides for those who are white and pure. Or some variation on that. There isn't usually much more to such thinking.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'll also put this in, age regression and age play aren't uncommon things in the trans community, most trans folk are basically robbed of their childhoods by having to conform to being the wrong gender. So it's not at all uncommon for trans folk later in life to try and recapture childhood.

OK, but we're on thin ice here. If the age regression is considered therapy or roleplay, what does that make the female aspect of their persona?

Generally speaking the age play and gender identity are separate subjects entirely. If someone refuses to be addressed or treated like an adult, even though they are an adult, then they're desperately trying to escape reality, but that has no bearing on gender identity. Now from what I could gather from the article, a quote was that she "didn't feel like being an adult right now", which is fine actually, it's a good way to put some distance between you and a major trauma, so you can actually deal with it. That doesn't make her not trans, because the trans part isn't tied to age play, except that in age play she is a little girl, not a little boy, as an adult she's an adult woman.

ask any 10 men what it means to be a man, you'll get 10 different answers, same if you ask any 10 women. Gender is mental state and identity, biological sex is the physicality, but what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman, is self definition, nothing more.

Just because there's subjectivity involved doesn't mean definitions are void or useless. A category can be well-defined and also almost completely subjective. I mean, ask 10 people what it means to be a parent, or American, or a human even, and you'll get a broad range of responses.

The definitions aren't what you think they are, gender is a subjective state amongst humans, it covers many facets of mental and social functioning that go beyond just biological sex. Sex is the biological parts that you are born with. This's one of the reasons why the term "transsexual", been replaced in favor of transgender, because we can't change a person's biological sex. Even the most advanced surgeries comes with enough risks that many trans folk don't want them, many others just don't feel they're necessary, or have other complicated reasons for not wanting them. Still the point stands, gender isn't just subjective, it's a mental state that, one that we have no control over, just like biological sex, and many of us have a gender that conflicts with our sex. Because of that, your further examples are non-sequitur examples, as being a parent, an america, and even a human are all classifications that have set standards. Gender not so much.

 

[Lictor Face]

I think the implication with people who think like Lictor appears to, would be that the country provides for those who are white and pure. Or some variation on that. There isn't usually much more to such thinking.

I'm asian and live in Singapore, lad. Your...."white male privilege" does not apply to me at all.

I've never liked how westerners enjoy forcing their ideologies on their asian counterparts anyway. What works there or may be apparent there does not mean the same is true on the other side of the globe.

 

[Lictor Face]

The problem with a dictatorship, especially a benevolent one, is that it only lasts as long as a dictator. I disagree anyways, the most effective government and political system is a slow moving representative republic, which the US had at one point, but our civil war did away with that. The original idea being that you can vote the current legislatures(Senate and House of Representitves) and executive officer(President) out of office before they do much damage.

Wars have changed that, as has communism from both the pro and con side. But in the larger scheme our government is doing well for being both young, along with having ridden out several huge civil shifts in the world. Like the industrial revolution. Too bad we're stuck in a populist environment with tough generational problems that our politicians can't fix all at once.

The problem I've always had with a republic is that people are generally selfish and short-sighted, and would vote on leaders who benefit their own little sphere of existence, rather than the nation as a whole. Perhaps its a Western thing to be patriotic and want a strong country and so on, but it isn't really like that in Asia, where the patriots are by far the minority.

This goes doubly so for Singapore which is an exorbitant amount of immigrants, migrants and various foreign talents who work here for a certain amount of time. We're a very transiet people, and its not unheard of for singaporeans to pack their bags and leave to another country permanently on a flip of a dime.

But the West and Asia, apples and bananas. The difference doesn't concern me that much.

So where you live you can shift gender legally without much issue? South East Asia seems a bit questionable in that respect if you don't mind my saying, because Thailand has been the bastion of availability of SRS[footnote]Sexual Reassignment Surgery[/footnote] for a long time for most of us in the west. There is no shortage of horror stories and people who just turn up missing.

Well, the gender change surgery (is that what its called) is still up in the year in Singapore, but regarding people who go under the knife overseas and return, I've never heard of problems in the administrative field. Though it is questionable on what grounds the government will accede to your desired gender change, the process is definitely present.

The scales never are balanced when you're talking about certain minorities, be they religious, racial, sexuality based, or gender identity based. That's where the twin specters of bigotry and discrimination thrive, when the majority can oppress the minority. That's where the harmony breaks down and you end up with impoverished, victimized classes.

It is illogical to appease the majority constantly, because it's the government's duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, minorities cannot protect themselves. This is exactly why the US had such a strong civil rights movement, our individual liberties allowed blacks to rise up decrying their unfair treatment, while allowing the white majority to learn of the wrongs and support their fellow citizens.

It's very logical to offend the majority, because they're the ones who can shrug it off once the initial political shit storm dies down. Minorities communities cannot just shrug off consistent systemic oppression.

I think you're taking my definition of "lack of rights" the wrong way and maybe I should have defined it earlier. As far as I know (and am concerned to be honest), homosexuals and transgenders in Singapore are fully capable of living their lives in harmony, bar the ability to get married to someone of the same 'legal' gender (hell I don't think transgenders have this problem, so long as the person the marry is considered legally of the other gender, otherwise eh).

They receive the exact amount of civil liberties (bar marriage), benefits, subsidies and consideration that everyone else does. As I've said, they can live a happy, fruitful life as anyone else, social factors not withstanding.

Minorities in Singapore are not oppressed in any sense of the word. Oppressing them would be silly anyway given the religious and cultural melting pot this country is. HOWEVER, it is true that very very small minorities do not otherwise receive benefits that the majority do.

Things like religious or cultural holidays and festivals are the biggest sign of this. You won't find any Mexican "Day of the Dead" celebrations nor Mardi Gras here, but you will find Good Friday and Deepavali (hindu festival). But if a group wants to celebrate Day of the Dead or Mardi Gras anyway? By all means, just take a day off work and do it on your own time.

No ones being oppressed here, carelessly disregarded maybe, but oppressed like the Rohingyans? Exaggeration.

Unfortunately you say the hate mongering doesn't exist, it does, how many trans folk and homosexual folk end up as prostitution slaves in SEA is nothing to sneeze at. Taking how bad it is in the west, because of the religious intolerance and the coverups the SEA governments perpetrate, it's not a stretch to say it's orders of magnitudes worse. Less oversight, less protection, and less awareness, means that vulnerable marginalized minorities get treated worse by magnitudes of order. You only need look at the US during slavery and Jim Crow, Nazi Germany in general, and so on, the less it's exposed, the less it's fought against, the worse it is. The thing is, politik is foreign policy, not domestic policy and politics. Really the more you pander to the mob, the more the mob demands, the mob in this case being being the majority.

Basically the US wouldn't be where it is without our being able to tell the majority to shut up and compromise.

I'll be honest. This is the absolute first time in my entire life in Asia that I've even heard of transgenders and homosexuals ending up as prostitution slaves. The absolute first.

You might be thinking of Thailand, who has an entire industry running off its odd culture of "lady-boys". I don't deny some might be transgenders, and definitely some might be prostitution slaves, but as a large it is a benign entertainment industry. With its participants no different from drag queens in that aspect. They dress up and strut, see it is a job and nothing else, or they could see it as an additional analogue to their lives.

Back to the statement at hand. I have never heard of transgenders and homosexuals ending up as sex slaves. Never. Definitely not in Singapore, and extremely unlikely even for the rest of Asia. If anything, such a thing will be found in Thailand due to the ladyboy culture, but is either an urban myth or not prolific enough to register on regional news sites.

Asia is largely conservative.
We are honestly more likely to drive away or persecute transgenders or homosexuals (not that it happens. but you probably see the point eh?) than to enslave them for the sex industry

Oh you're wrong on the last point. Singapore does a lot of things, but 'pandering' to the mob is definitely not one of them. Again this is probably my fault for not defining or explaining things properly.

Well I did say that the main reason why Singapore doesn't legalize gay marriage is because it will offend the majority, that DOESN'T mean that every decision panders to the majority.

On social issues such as gay marriage and transgenders and what not, they keep a mainly hands off approach and try not to rock the boat.

Regarding state issues, such as the law, people have little to no say about it. We are the very definition of a nanny-state. An iron-fisted but tender caretaker who views its charges as especially stupid and ignorant children. Its a very Machiavellian viewpoint I find.

For example, people have been complaining, in great numbers mind you, about how the death penalty should be banned in Singapore. This protesting and activism has been present for years. The government has not done anything, nor entertained the idea, because it doesn't see it as part of their interests. So they ignore it, and we still hang traffickers on the rafters.

Again. Apples and bananas. Very different viewpoints.