What effort is that, Emanuele Ciriachi? If you have some grounding in psychology, psychiatry, or therapy, then I would very much like to know what therapeutic regimens have been overlooked by the medical community that you have reason to believe are effective, or, if none currently exist, what regimens you have invented that you believe would be effective. Please, do share with us your research and methodology.
The worst thing is that society already pressures us to do what he's asking. It even tells us to go on step further, and fake it if we can't undo being trans through some wu-wu-horseshit. It doesn't work, and it's part of the high suicide rate among transfolk. This idea that if we only tried harder, we could be "normal," whatever that is. This whole argument is tone deaf, assuming the best of intentions.
I don't know that there's a universal trans experience, but this sort of issue is incredibly common to come up at some point in a trans individual's life.
Which sort of segues into the next quote, so....
Poetic Nova said:
For me it actually stems from being bullied for 12 years or so, which only stopped because someone pushed my buttons hard enough that I beat him up. I hardly hanged out with dudes, which was reasons enough to pick on me appearantly.
anyway. Ive been reading somewhere earlier in this thread that having friends while being trans can be a difficult thing to have, and it is something I have to agree on. The amount I have can be counted on pretty much on one hand, and only 2 of them I'm really close with; them being a guy who's my best friend for 10 years now, and my boyfriend who accepts me for who I am despite the fact that I wont start on HRT untill it is june.
I don't know if I wouldve come this far without those two. Considering I had a severe depression that still kinda lingers on.
Didnt expect ending up in a short rant, appologies.
No worries on the rant. I am the queen of rants. Actually, I am the Overlady of Smug, but still.
So those things are all sort of interrelated to me. I'm antisocial because I got the crap kicked out of me for not being enough of a "boy" or "man," depending on the time period. And for being a "******," for not meeting those gender expectations. The weirder thing is I grew up liking traditionally "male" hobbies, but something about me screamed "gay" or "girly" to pretty much everyone, and I don't know what. Later on, at least, I would wear nail polish, started keeping my hear long, even wore skirts to school, so I can see why someone would think I wasn't meeting gender stereotypes there, but that was after the fact, and in part a "screw it" reaction.
Similar to you, I eventually snapped and fought back. But for me it was more like the Nolan Batman movies. I escalated, so they did. Thankfully, nobody collapsed a football field around here, but it got to the point where I was being "bullied" with guns and knives and the police still wouldn't help me.
...I wonder why I don't hang around a lot of people.
This exacerbates the existing situation, where I have had trouble forming bonds with people because I knew I was effectively lying to them. And with two words, I can radically alter a relationship and end a friendship. Because people who are fine with me will suddenly not be. And I've lived that. And so it's like, "what's the point?"
I've only got a handful of personal friends I trust. And even then...one of them's someone who's only known for a couple of months, despite us going back together more than 20 years. He's an LGBT supporter who I've known for over half my life and is one of my closest friends. So what's the problem? The last time I was in a similar situation (an LGBT advocate who in this case was bisexual and who had been friends with me half our lives), it was the last thing I ever said to him. He cut me off. And given my history, I'm just glad he didn't try and rape or murder me.
How's that for a mini rant? >.<
LifeCharacter said:
So New York City instituted a law whereby you are required to refer to your employees by their legal gender? And that's a problem for you? Do you think employers shouldn't give their employees the incredibly low bar of respect that "referring to someone by their legal gender" is?
Well, it's not about legal gender or I could see a problem with it. It can be difficult to change your legal details. Not being a New Yorker, I'm no intimately familiar with the process there, but it can be a real pain. That would actually make it harder on a lot of trans individuals, since many states require some level of transition first last I knew.
However, as-is, an employer would be required to address me as Amy if I told them to, regardless of whether my ID says "Amy." It literally states this in Emanuele's own article. Christ, I should see if my brother has room.
I'm missing the "regressive" part of this, though.
Whatever makes them happy, is fine with me. It must have been tough going through life feeling like you're in the wrong body. I will say with full awareness that this is not the issue at hand however, that I imagine they are not attractive women. They were not particularly easy to look at as men, and I somehow would guess that hasn't changed. Again, to be clear, not a value judgement, or a statement about trans people as a group.
For me it actually stems from being bullied for 12 years or so, which only stopped because someone pushed my buttons hard enough that I beat him up. I hardly hanged out with dudes, which was reasons enough to pick on me appearantly.
anyway. Ive been reading somewhere earlier in this thread that having friends while being trans can be a difficult thing to have, and it is something I have to agree on. The amount I have can be counted on pretty much on one hand, and only 2 of them I'm really close with; them being a guy who's my best friend for 10 years now, and my boyfriend who accepts me for who I am despite the fact that I wont start on HRT untill it is june.
I don't know if I wouldve come this far without those two. Considering I had a severe depression that still kinda lingers on.
Didnt expect ending up in a short rant, appologies.
No worries on the rant. I am the queen of rants. Actually, I am the Overlady of Smug, but still.
So those things are all sort of interrelated to me. I'm antisocial because I got the crap kicked out of me for not being enough of a "boy" or "man," depending on the time period. And for being a "******," for not meeting those gender expectations. The weirder thing is I grew up liking traditionally "male" hobbies, but something about me screamed "gay" or "girly" to pretty much everyone, and I don't know what. Later on, at least, I would wear nail polish, started keeping my hear long, even wore skirts to school, so I can see why someone would think I wasn't meeting gender stereotypes there, but that was after the fact, and in part a "screw it" reaction.
Similar to you, I eventually snapped and fought back. But for me it was more like the Nolan Batman movies. I escalated, so they did. Thankfully, nobody collapsed a football field around here, but it got to the point where I was being "bullied" with guns and knives and the police still wouldn't help me.
...I wonder why I don't hang around a lot of people.
This exacerbates the existing situation, where I have had trouble forming bonds with people because I knew I was effectively lying to them. And with two words, I can radically alter a relationship and end a friendship. Because people who are fine with me will suddenly not be. And I've lived that. And so it's like, "what's the point?"
I've only got a handful of personal friends I trust. And even then...one of them's someone who's only known for a couple of months, despite us going back together more than 20 years. He's an LGBT supporter who I've known for over half my life and is one of my closest friends. So what's the problem? The last time I was in a similar situation (an LGBT advocate who in this case was bisexual and who had been friends with me half our lives), it was the last thing I ever said to him. He cut me off. And given my history, I'm just glad he didn't try and rape or murder me.
Well, first things first, I'm terribly sorry to hear what you had to deal with.
And touche on the rant I suppose. I'm not a lady who can make long stories, useally keeping it short.
I didn't come out as transgender until 2 years ago, but was dealing with an identity crisis beforehand which made me fail my course in college. Which is probably a good thing because I knew a guy who thought that anything not straight and such was unnatural, up to the point of bullying someone for being gay.
I'm going to be frank here, if it weren't for the 2 people I am very close with, I would've ended it a few years ago.
I've lost a few friends aswell just due to suddenly losing contact, but that honestly doesn't bother me. Weren't as close with them.
Now I'm still dealing with moodswings I dont have control over, which either means that I am irritated really fast, not thinking of the consequences and pretty much lashing out for the slighest of reasons, or a kind but not exactly a social person. Kinda tiring and awhile ago I unintentionally lashed out to my boyfriend which made me feel bad.
And that's not even talking about the terrible self image I'm dealing with with thanks to the fact that I dont have the lady parts yet. Broke down quite a few times due to it.
Furthermore, there are situations [http://www.mediaite.com/online/nyc-bans-employers-from-calling-transgender-employees-wrong-gender/] in the U.S. where laws pushed by the liberal regressive left can lead to situations where people could be fined tens of thousands of dollars to address people with their "wrong" - that is, their right - sex.
So New York City instituted a law whereby you are required to refer to your employees by their legal gender? And that's a problem for you? Do you think employers shouldn't give their employees the incredibly low bar of respect that "referring to someone by their legal gender" is?
Like, let's ignore your notion that you are somehow more informed and authoritative than the entirety of the medical community on this matter, we're talking about the law here. When the law says that a person is a certain gender, you refer to that person as a member of that gender, especially if you happen to have a legal relationship with them, as an employer has to an employee. What you're complaining about in this instance is the apparent tragedy of the "regressive left" punishing employers for violating the law for no other reason than their personal opinion on the workings of sex and gender and complete lack of respect for their fellow human being.
Isn't it obvious why this doesn't make any sense? This is not about being kind and compassionate with people that struggle with their identity - we all agree about this. It's about punishing a factually accurate statement because someone chooses to be offended about it - no matter how sincerely. Philosohically it's about putting subjectivy before objectivity, ethically literally means punishing someone for a non-crime and I take exception to this - greatly so.
Like other people I also had to struggle with my own limitations and a complex social environment. I believe in overcoming difficulties for the greater good, I also believe in the social duty of furthering society - among the other things - with one's children, and I pursued this goal in spite of whatever personal inclination conflicted with it. I don't expect other people to share this sentiment, but I strongly contest the notion that personal inclinations cannot be changed or defied through will with the intention of a greater goal.
This should not be enforced on anyone obviously, although it should be encouraged and cherished.
LifeCharacter said:
What sort of reaction does it require? Claiming authority over a subject that you have no right to claim it over for the sake of fighting the "regressive left" that wants people to refer to others by their legally recognized gender?
Once again, there is nothing inherently offensive in making a correct statement about someone's biology. Tact and circumstances dictate whethere it can be appropriate - I don't go saying "you're fat" to someone clinically obese - but one cannot in any way make it punishable by law to cause someone's offense, PRECISELY because what leads to this is subjective. Nothing you or other experts' have to say will change this.
As for the regressive left, I call it this way because some of the changes they tout as progress are exactly the opposite of it - it's merely accomodating people's every whim and inclinations even when those might be egocentric and self-serving, it's being culturally populist. And I completely disagree with this notion.
I do not mean gender as sexual orientation. The two are unrelated.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
No, of course it's not. If someone's identity conflicts with their own biology, there is nothing insulting in referring to the latter - identity is subjective, biology is objective.
Firstly, calling somebody who has physically transitioned by their birth sex is not referring to their biology wholly; it is referring solely to their chromosomes. Other biological indicators-- such as genitalia, hormones, body shape, or visible appearance-- may have been changed to match their identified gender. You're referring to only one biological indicator, and asserting that it is a more valid metric than all the others.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Are there such people? Because their conundrum strikes me as very silly - it is merely an issue of definition, which can be resolved by agreeing on what defines a bisexual or a gay person.
You misunderstand. These people do not hold a different definition for bisexuality; they know the word refers to people attracted to those of either sex. They simply believe such people do not exist.
They're willing to invalidate the experiences of the people who actually identify as such, as well as expert opinion, to assert such. But in what way is this "sillier" (or less silly) than invalidating the existence of gender dysphoria?
Something Amyss said:
There's a strong medical consensus that transitioning is the most appropriate method. This usually involves at least hormones, but even that isn't required and SRS certainly isn't. In fact, there are a lot of risks associated with SRS.
What I'd seen & read generally seemed to present SRS as the approach with the greatest success rate, in terms of those measures I mentioned (which is not to say it's necessary). If I'm mistaken, I'll cop to it. I may be.
Then once again, Emanuele Ciriachi, I am forced to ask how you or your so-maligned brother in ideology possess specific knowledge of this person's chromosomes, since you hold that as the only relevant factor in either sex or gender, that allow you to assert with certainty that you know better than the trans person what his or her sex is. Have you an answer for this?
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Once again, there is nothing inherently offensive in making a correct statement about someone's biology.
Nothing is inherently offensive about anything. It is always a subjective response. Nothing about its subjectivity invalidates a sense of offense, though, and neither does your disagreeing with it absolve you of your responsibility for knowingly and repeatedly saying things others will reasonably be offended by.
I am not aware of any phobia in the DSM labeled as such. So you are accusing me of being mentally ill (and a jerk) because I'm calling a man a man when a man prefers to be called something that he is not? Because this is the kind of culturally regressive nonsense that triggers me.
First off I never called you mentally ill, never said transphobia, or transphobic behavior constitute mental illnesses, they're just words used to represent a prejudice, discriminatory, and/or bigoted attitude related to rejection transgenderism as a legitimate condition. The DSM-V talks extensively about gender dysphoria and how the correct manner of addressing it, calling a trans woman a man at any time accordingly is patently incorrect. Meaning you're using selective reading of the DSM for political reasons, that's not how medical manuals work. I never called you mentally ill, but insisting on not sharing any common decency is jerk behavior. Note, I'm not saying you are a jerk, just that you're behaving like one. Also regressiveness requires ignoring progress.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
You are making a whole lot of assumptions here. If you think that calling someone who has XX chromosomes a woman causes all those things, you probably have a way too thin comfort zone, and are literally offended by objective, independently verifiable truth.
Non-sequitur! Genetics are not objective, verifiable truth. I was born physically male and assigned male at birth, I have XX chromosomes, I transitioned to living as a female, I have not had SRS. In a casual conversation there are two pieces of information you are not going to have about the person you're talking to; their genetic profile, and their genitals. You have way too thin a comfort zone if you're defaulting to genetics, because in a casual encounter that is information you cannot have, you're also ignoring the existance of XX males, XY females, and people with XXY, XXXY, XXYY, and etc chromosomal setups. Genetics isn't the set-in-stone object truth you seem think it is.
See you're the one making assumptions, because you're putting everything on genetics, which you don't seem to understand as well as you think you do. Again that's not information you're going to have, unless you genetically test everyone you talk to in person before you gender them, which is realistically really unreasonable. So I'm gonna say on this subject you're all full of assumptions and scientific misunderstandings.
One assumption I will make, if we met in person and you had no idea that I am the same person attached to the forum name I have here... You'd be referring to me using female pronouns. I actually know this for a fact, because I pass as female well enough that people who don't know I'm trans refer to me as female. I only ever get misgendered after a friend who knows I'm trans outs me to strangers. Even after I'm outed most strangers still refer to me as female, many who want to misgender me as male usually can't do it, as it almost makes them visibly physically uncomfortable, due to how feminine I look and present.
At any rate the genetic argument doesn't excuse behaving with a lack of basic respect and common decency. Misgendering people on the basis of sex over gender identity is objectively insensitive, disrespectful, offensive, and dangerous to the person you're misgendering. You already pointed out that you wouldn't misgender a feminine cisgender man, or a masculine cisgender woman, so doing insisting on misgendering trans folk is at best a double standard.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
EDIT: mis-typed XX as YY. Apparently I am very gender-confused today.
So you consider medically necessary corrective surgeries to be mutilation, good to know, I honestly hope you're not an MD anywhere. Now I have to address your response to @Lightknigt too, no problem but I'm gonna put that in spoiler tags.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
I see, but this would be an example of Guilt by Association. A broad classification based on sex still exists, and while finer one based on sexual preferences may also exist, this does not make the other one irrelevant.
Not really, gender dysphoria isn't fully understood, it's accepted as a legitimate condition, thus the condition and treatment of transgender folk via transition is scientifically valid. That's the opinion of the scientific, psychiatric, and medical community by majority, refuting it is denying science. Now I have to put this fact in nice bold red letters for you: Gender identity and sexual preference are separate and different things. Being transgender is not a sexual preference. I hope we're clear on that now.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
I may also add that words like "homophobia", "islamophobia" and "transphobia" do not describe any actual phobia (which is a very specific medical term and has specific symptoms) and are often used by some people to smear as mentally ill people whose opinion they don't like, to try and engineer an artificial sense of guilt in western society, to redefine our values as prejudices and to silence legitimate opinion and the free exchange of ideas that have made us what we are and that have given us our strength. I believe this is damaging our society in a fundamental way and it has got to stop.
Well the likes of terms like transphobia, homophobia, and islamophobia aren't medical terms, they're terms related to harmfully prejudice attitudes that lead to people being hurt and killed. These words came into existence because just saying something is prejudice, or bigoted isn't a strong enough, or specific enough term to classify such attitudes. Values and ideas stop being valid though when they promote violence, including rape and murder against groups of people, just because those people don't fit into narrowly defined categories.
I want to be absolutely clear on something here, now, with no wiggle room. When universities gather statistics on the transgender community they find that at least 41% of respondents have attempted suicide. That's 41% of transgender people, who have attempted suicide, not counting the ones that succeeded in actually committing suicide. Do you know what causes this? Social rejection and an inability to access transition. What you're doing is contributing to that culture which results in a society that damages trans people, that's not guilt by association, you've actually contributed to a culture that harms trans people, by rejecting our conditions. I'm part of the 59% who have never attempted suicide, mostly because through out my life I've been accepted at least by the people who really matter to me, because I've never experienced an inability to access medical transitional care. The views you're endorsing through out your post here are the views that contribute to trans folk being discriminated against in housing, employment, and access to services, in being unable to transition, in being rejected from society. Please understand that's not guilt by association, it's active contribution, no matter how small, to the problems trans folk face.
Finally, most people disregard buzzword terms like transphobia, homophobia, and islamophobia, they're pretty empty terms any more. They're not silencing you. What needs to stop in culture is the exclusion and devaluation of people for being different.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Lightknight said:
There isn't a "thing" so much as there are "things". Studies have found that, for example, trans-men have brain plasticity, reaction times, and spatial awareness that is more similar to the brains of non-trans men than it is to women. This is in addition to physical qualities like the finger digit ratio that actually is different on average between men and women but a trans-man's average digit ratio lines up with non-trans men more than women. There is also a statistically significant correlation where if one twin pursues transition surgery that the other twin will as well. That points strongly to a biological cause well beyond anything environmental since that twin study was only capturing actual transitions rather than whether or not the other twin identified as transgendered which should be a lot higher.
Consider what this means if transgenderism has actual distinguishable physiological differences that actually does line up with the opposite sex and if there are clear causative correlations with biological factors.
Fair enough - there are also men that have more feminine traits and women who have masculine ones, but they are still men and women - that is, barring situations that make them sterile they are still sexually compatible for reproduction, which is the reason sexes have evolved the way they are. Perhaps one day they will find a biological configuration that affects some men and women which will then generate a new classification, but this will be in addition to their sex, no a replacement of it.
True there are feminine cisgender men, as well as masculine cisgender women, further more they're still the gender they identify as due to being cisgender. Further more I know several feminine cisgender guys who exclusively wear women's clothing, I know several masculine cisgender women who wear exclusively men's clothing, and I refer to them using the gender pronouns they prefer. I know a lot of transgender men and women who haven't transitioned yet, a few who aren't going to, I still use their preferred gender pronouns. Why? Because in both cases it's the right thing to do, using correct gender pronouns for one group, but not another is a double standard.
Your explanation regarding sexual reproductive capability threw infertile people, people born without reproductive parts(like women born without a uterus, men born without testicles), and intersex people under the bus. As in you just dismissed their existence entirely. People are not the sum of our reproductive parts, we do not form personalities from our reproductive parts, thus reproductive parts are also not an excuse for misgendering people.
Now if we find a way to actually change peoples biological sexes, you'd still stick to a means of referring to them as the sex they were assigned at birth? That is without a doubt the most amazing example cognitive dissonance I have ever seen in my entire life. You just obliterated your entire platform. You also still don't address people who don't conform to the gender binary, nor have you addressed the fact that gender is in personality and personal identity, not genitals.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Even if I myself would feel the need of dressing or behaving like the opposite sex I certainly wouldn't be offended by someone addressing me using an objectively accurate statement, and I was offended it would be my decision. There is offending, and there is taking offense.
Because of all this I really don't understand this whole "being offended by facts" business.
That's because just dressing and acting like the opposite gender isn't the same thing as being transgender. There is a lot of neuro-scientific evidence that points to the fact that trans women have brains much the same as cisgender women, and trans men have brains of cis men, and non-binary identifying people fall somewhere between. That's objective scientific fact for you. Even if you dressed and acted like the opposite gender, so long as you're gender identity aligned with your sex assigned at birth, you'd use the pronouns of the sex you're assigned at birth. Chiefly because in such case you wouldn't be transgender. Why is that so hard to understand? You're argument of: "Because of all this I really don't understand this whole "being offended by facts" business." That argument is totally meaningless because you're ignoring the facts.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Lightknight said:
As for "objective situation", you have probably met a lot more transsexual people than you realize. Watching my spouse going through it (Please note that this was a surprise to me, a straight male, and if anyone should be mad here it would be me) led me to be around a large number of people in the trans community. Let me tell you, depending on how long they've been on hormones and what procedures they've undergone you have NO idea what sex chromosome order they have. What would you do then if someone that clearly objectively looks male tells you they were born female? Do you start using female pronouns with that additional information or do you continue using male ones?
I remember going to a dinner with a bunch of guys and afterwards my spouse said to me, "Did it occur to you that you were the only person at the table with a dick?" No, it hadn't occurred to me because most of them were years into treatment and totally looked like their gender identity.
I see you didn't answer the question there. Would you have switched gender pronouns if you found out someone you thought was one gender was assigned the opposite one at birth?
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Lightknight said:
Ultimately at some point you've got to ask yourself, what is this to you? Someone in the world is walking around with one more or one less dick. In what way are you or anyone you know personally impacted? Lower surgery technology isn't even really there right now so a lot don't even pursue it and just stick with upper surgery depending on the degree of dysphoria they have. Upper surgery is there and is relatively cheap to pursue and does have the greatest impact on individual happiness.
But you've got to understand that this isn't simple dislike of the body they were given. This isn't like some non-trans female looking at the mirror and not liking her cheek bones or breast size. It's dislike to the point of being a full-blown disorder that can frequently cause extreme depression that greatly impacts their lives (or even lead to the end of it). In order for medical doctors to justify this kind of intensive surgery there must be an established medical need for it. Otherwise they're just doing harm.
Think of it this way, for a small segment of the population, using pronouns that do not match their gender is like insulting them and they're already going through enough. Does it really cost you so much to be mindful of what the medical field calls a condition? Even if you personally think it's a mental condition rather than a biological one, what good is you misgendering them? It only hurts their feelings and what else?
I think that if someone goes as far as suffering all those symptoms, the answer is not a surgery that - amont the other things - may remove one's ability to reproduce, it's accepting themselves for what they are. You may reply that this is what they are doing, but if they are going to change their body to match their deside I think they are doing it wrong. And the fact that they choose to have their feelings hurt by a plainly verifiable statement is just one more symptom of their self-rejection.
I can understand this position, but please understand something important here. Transition from HRT and gender reassignment surgeries. like facial feminization surgery, to genital reconstruction surgeries. Those are the only currently viable way to address gender dysphoria. The option for people to "accept themselves" as you consider it is called "conversion therapy", not only does it not work, it greatly increases the chance the person experiencing gender dysphoria might attempt suicide, and succeed as a consequence. Accepting one's self means accepting when one is transgender, again this is about personality and personal identity, which is not something that's dictated by a person's reproductive organs. Are we clear on this fact now?
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
NOTE:
This is an intriguing topic, but I just received a warning because a moderator decided that someone could be offended by what I wrote, and this apparently warrants such reprisal. Just a heads up - I might not be able continue this discussion because of such dubious policies.
It might help if you looked outside your own perspective, because as a trans person I can tell you your statements do actually come off as offensive.
I left that last part outside the spoilers for a reason, because this is a very sensitive topic, especially because there are trans people active in this thread. Emanuele Cirachi, I apologize if I've come off as overly harsh, but this situation is sensitive especially considering the people who are participating.
Well, first things first, I'm terribly sorry to hear what you had to deal with.
And touche on the rant I suppose. I'm not a lady who can make long stories, useally keeping it short.
No worries. Mostly just having fun on the latter bit.
I've got more comfortable talking about my experiences on here because of how many people insist this sort of thing doesn't happen in the West. And...yeah.
I didn't come out as transgender until 2 years ago, but was dealing with an identity crisis beforehand which made me fail my course in college. Which is probably a good thing because I knew a guy who thought that anything not straight and such was unnatural, up to the point of bullying someone for being gay.
I'm going to be frank here, if it weren't for the 2 people I am very close with, I would've ended it a few years ago.
I've lost a few friends aswell just due to suddenly losing contact, but that honestly doesn't bother me. Weren't as close with them.
I have been technically out since the 90s. And it nearly killed me several times, so I just sort of stopped talking about it and everything's fine and dandy. Well, except for the level of anxiety I have and the fact that it's only been recently that I've started taking steps regarding it, half my life later. Because really, this is no way to live.
And yeah, I don't think I would have survived without a couple of close friends who knew anyway. Before that point, I had attempted suicide several times.
God, I'm just a ball of sunshine today.
Then again, this is my resting face:
Now I'm still dealing with moodswings I dont have control over, which either means that I am irritated really fast, not thinking of the consequences and pretty much lashing out for the slighest of reasons, or a kind but not exactly a social person. Kinda tiring and awhile ago I unintentionally lashed out to my boyfriend which made me feel bad.
And that's not even talking about the terrible self image I'm dealing with with thanks to the fact that I dont have the lady parts yet. Broke down quite a few times due to it.
As for the regressive left, I call it this way because some of the changes they tout as progress are exactly the opposite of it - it's merely accomodating people's every whim and inclinations even when those might be egocentric and self-serving, it's being culturally populist. And I completely disagree with this notion.
Except the changes in question are for a group of people who have an overwhelming body of medical, psych and scientific literature backing them up. This is not a slight whim. It's reality. It's reality for a minority you seem to be accusing of being self-centered for not entertaining your views. I'm actually sort of curious as to how you can claim everyone else is in the wrong here.
Silvanus said:
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Not both, just in sex - assuming you mean gender as sexual orientation.
I do not mean gender as sexual orientation. The two are unrelated.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
What I'd seen & read generally seemed to present SRS as the approach with the greatest success rate, in terms of those measures I mentioned (which is not to say it's necessary). If I'm mistaken, I'll cop to it. I may be.
SRS has long been pushed as a way to normalise transfolk. Which seems to be more for society than for us. This in itself is a problem because SRS does carry risks and many transfolk actually don't want it. Still more can't afford it, or have medical conditions that make it inadvisable. I remember the point at which "non-op" actually started becoming a (relatively) common thing, and it's really not all that long ago. It's like it didn't even occur to anyone before that not everyone would want the exact same thing. Or want to risk their health, lives, or sex lives over it.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
*glances at my keyboard* That's a hell of a typo considering how far apart the X and Y keys are. Granted, I've managed worse.
SRS has long been pushed as a way to normalise transfolk. Which seems to be more for society than for us. This in itself is a problem because SRS does carry risks and many transfolk actually don't want it. Still more can't afford it, or have medical conditions that make it inadvisable. I remember the point at which "non-op" actually started becoming a (relatively) common thing, and it's really not all that long ago. It's like it didn't even occur to anyone before that not everyone would want the exact same thing. Or want to risk their health, lives, or sex lives over it.
No worries. Mostly just having fun on the latter bit.
I've got more comfortable talking about my experiences on here because of how many people insist this sort of thing doesn't happen in the West. And...yeah.
Pretty much why I'd love to have some proper self defense one way or another.
Laws on weaponry is so strict that even pepperspray is forbidden however, and my steeltoed boots are in a grey area.
Something Amyss said:
I have been technically out since the 90s. And it nearly killed me several times, so I just sort of stopped talking about it and everything's fine and dandy. Well, except for the level of anxiety I have and the fact that it's only been recently that I've started taking steps regarding it, half my life later. Because really, this is no way to live.
And yeah, I don't think I would have survived without a couple of close friends who knew anyway. Before that point, I had attempted suicide several times.
Don't be.
While I'm still dealing with alot of things (which will probably change for the better when I receive HRT), the few who I do care about support me through thick and thin.
Anyway. I don't mind sharing my experience further, but it does feel like we are derailing the topic at hand.
You know, I thought I had a bunch bookmarked. And now I wish a friend of mine hadn't deleted her YouTube channel and gone dark, because she had a ton of resources. Many of which I may have cribbed. >.<
Poetic Nova said:
Anyway. I don't mind sharing my experience further, but it does feel like we are derailing the topic at hand.
Kind of hard to tell. The minute anything trans (or LGBT, etc) comes up, the thread is pretty much going to be a cluster of various topics. It's sort of an insta-derail in itself, since you're guaranteed to have people who come out of the gates talking about how [proper pronoun] is really [other pronoun], people questioning why this is news, people defending hatred, etc. Generically, "trans" becomes the topic.
Anyway, if you want, you can always hit me up via PM. I don't bite. Ask anyone. Except Steve.
Kind of hard to tell. The minute anything trans (or LGBT, etc) comes up, the thread is pretty much going to be a cluster of various topics. It's sort of an insta-derail in itself, since you're guaranteed to have people who come out of the gates talking about how [proper pronoun] is really [other pronoun], people questioning why this is news, people defending hatred, etc. Generically, "trans" becomes the topic.
Anyway, if you want, you can always hit me up via PM. I don't bite. Ask anyone. Except Steve.
Any thread that contains the any one of the following words: trans, gender, feminism, or/and censorship is going to get derailed anymore. A certain big commotion on the internet made absolutely certain of that. I'm the OP here and I'm totally fine with derail, since pretty much all that can be said about Lilly Wachowski coming out as trans has already been said.
There isn't a "thing" so much as there are "things". Studies have found that, for example, trans-men have brain plasticity, reaction times, and spatial awareness that is more similar to the brains of non-trans men than it is to women. This is in addition to physical qualities like the finger digit ratio that actually is different on average between men and women but a trans-man's average digit ratio lines up with non-trans men more than women. There is also a statistically significant correlation where if one twin pursues transition surgery that the other twin will as well. That points strongly to a biological cause well beyond anything environmental since that twin study was only capturing actual transitions rather than whether or not the other twin identified as transgendered which should be a lot higher.
Consider what this means if transgenderism has actual distinguishable physiological differences that actually does line up with the opposite sex and if there are clear causative correlations with biological factors.
Fair enough - there are also men that have more feminine traits and women who have masculine ones, but they are still men and women - that is, barring situations that make them sterile they are still sexually compatible for reproduction, which is the reason sexes have evolved the way they are. Perhaps one day they will find a biological configuration that affects some men and women which will then generate a new classification, but this will be in addition to their sex, no a replacement of it.
1. Law of averages does not account for the outliers. Yes there are men who are more effeminate than other men while still being straight and non-trans. The point here lies in the average. The average trans man actually differs from the average woman in physical and neurological ways that align with the average non-trans male. That's a significant point. It goes beyond mere effeminate or masculine traits in behaviors, though those happen too. It's also possible that the majority of effeminate or masculine people are closeted transgendered people or somewhere on the scale towards the opposite sex. Possible, but I have found no research seeking out effeminate men or masculine women along those lines. It's also impossible to proclaim that a person is transgendered if they are refusing to identify as that.
2. One could argue that transgenderism is advantageous for our species. If you have a transgendered man in your harem, then you've got additional protection for the other women in a transman that carries more masculine traits suited for defense. If you've got a transmale as a husband then it's possibly beneficial to have a more nurturing parent. Those are just a couple examples. It is only recently that we've been able to prescribe hormone adjustments and surgeries. Less than 100 years does not negate the evolutional advantage of history.
3. Terminology has changed. Male and Female have both branched out to either be describing gender or sex. Sex would be what you are exclusively assigning male or female to. Gender is their internal identity. Now that modern science has begun to recognize that the gender does not always match the sex, this split became necessary. You are right that they are still sexually male or female, no matter what surgery or hormone they take. But you are not right that their gender matches their chromosome.
Even if I myself would feel the need of dressing or behaving like the opposite sex I certainly wouldn't be offended by someone addressing me using an objectively accurate statement, and I was offended it would be my decision. There is offending, and there is taking offense.
Because of all this I really don't understand this whole "being offended by facts" business.
Because the terms have changed, gendered pronouns no longer purely reflect sexual identity but also include gender identity.
A trans person would have no right to be upset with your misgendering them unless they were clearly presenting as the other sex. If you are made aware of their gender identity and then misgender them, then you would at fault for offense. People who take offense right off the bat without you having any way of knowing are just being dicks and most trans people would be on your side there. No one thinks you're going to be psychic.
Think of it like the person has an exotic name and you're just pronouncing it right.
Lightknight said:
As for "objective situation", you have probably met a lot more transsexual people than you realize. Watching my spouse going through it (Please note that this was a surprise to me, a straight male, and if anyone should be mad here it would be me) led me to be around a large number of people in the trans community. Let me tell you, depending on how long they've been on hormones and what procedures they've undergone you have NO idea what sex chromosome order they have. What would you do then if someone that clearly objectively looks male tells you they were born female? Do you start using female pronouns with that additional information or do you continue using male ones?
I remember going to a dinner with a bunch of guys and afterwards my spouse said to me, "Did it occur to you that you were the only person at the table with a dick?" No, it hadn't occurred to me because most of them were years into treatment and totally looked like their gender identity.
Yes, my background in this is somewhat tragically informed, particularly tragic because of my orientation being straight and something I cannot/should not change. I do not expect my previously very happy marriage to survive the transition and that breaks my heart. But what of my question? If you saw a person who looked male by all accounts and you'd always thought was a male, you'd use male pronouns. But if they told you that they were born female, would you then change your pronouns or try to figure out their former female name and use that instead of the one you'd been using?
Let me give you an example, the below picture is a now famous photo of a transman explaining why birth bathroom use laws (requiring you to use the bathroom of the sex you were assigned on your birth certificate) can get particularly awkward. A transwoman runs serious risk of harm going into a men's room and a transman runs a serious risk causing quite a stir going into a woman's room.
Would you honestly think to call this guy a woman or use "her" when referring to him? I mean, observationally the term would clearly be male, right?
I think that if someone goes as far as suffering all those symptoms, the answer is not a surgery that - amont the other things - may remove one's ability to reproduce, it's accepting themselves for what they are. You may reply that this is what they are doing, but if they are going to change their body to match their deside I think they are doing it wrong. And the fact that they choose to have their feelings hurt by a plainly verifiable statement is just one more symptom of their self-rejection.
It isn't about accepting themselves. It's about mitigating the depression caused by body dysphoria. For a lot of them, it's either this or suicide or severe sometimes debilitating depression and as such the medical community has responded.
NOTE:
This is an intriguing topic, but I just received a warning because a moderator decided that someone could be offended by what I wrote, and this apparently warrants such reprisal. Just a heads up - I might not be able continue this discussion because of such dubious policies.
Strange, you are saying things which might be seen as "ignorant" by certain groups but you do not appear to be behaving rudely to people specifically. Then again, I've mostly only been reading your responses to me directly so perhaps in a specific post somewhere you crossed the line. People learn best when they present an idea that is incorrect and are then able to discuss it with people who know the correct answer. Also, on subjective issues people do well when communicating with people of different backgrounds to hear more ideas and grow with them.
See, here's where you're encountering problems. What you call "factually accurate" and "objectivity" is neither of those things; they're just your personal views on the situation that are built upon little, if any, actual foundation. Your facts and objectivity aren't even supported by science, medicine, or psychology.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you are referring to here - the only hard statement I made is that a person with XY chromosomes is a man regardless of their sexual preferences or behavior or whatnot. What exactly are you contesting?
LifeCharacter said:
And what greater good is achieved through denying your own personal identity?
I didn't completely deny my identity, but I would have been ready to do so if that was a requirement to have a family. The greater good achieved, in this case, is the continuation of my family on a minor level and of the society at large in the grand scheme of things.
LifeCharacter said:
Except they are making an incorrect statement about someone's socially acknowledged identity. That you want to pretend that a trans person being misgendered by their employer is the same thing as calling an obese person fat, that's on you, because, like everything else, it is rooted in nothing other than your personal, unsupported views.
Uhm... no..? Precisely because sexual identity and gender (or sex) are two separate things. I will be frank: if you support punishment by means law of factually correct statements simply on the grounds that people can be offended by factually correct statements, you are part of the problem.
Silvanus said:
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Are there such people? Because their conundrum strikes me as very silly - it is merely an issue of definition, which can be resolved by agreeing on what defines a bisexual or a gay person.
You misunderstand. These people do not hold a different definition for bisexuality; they know the word refers to people attracted to those of either sex. They simply believe such people do not exist.
They're willing to invalidate the experiences of the people who actually identify as such, as well as expert opinion, to assert such. But in what way is this "sillier" (or less silly) than invalidating the existence of gender dysphoria?
Is this a similar approach to the one that Ahmadinejad took when he had a speech in a US university and claimed that there are no gays in Iran? Either way it's an indredibly dumb proposition.
JimB said:
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
It's about punishing a factually accurate statement because someone chooses to be offended about it, no matter how sincerely.
Then once again, Emanuele Ciriachi, I am forced to ask how you or your so-maligned brother in ideology possess specific knowledge of this person's chromosomes, since you hold that as the only relevant factor in either sex or gender, that allow you to assert with certainty that you know better than the trans person what his or her sex is. Have you an answer for this?
I don't know for certain of course, it's an assumption based on his appearance, name, pronouns used and the news that he has now choosen to adopt a female identity.
JimB said:
Nothing is inherently offensive about anything. It is always a subjective response. Nothing about its subjectivity invalidates a sense of offense, though, and neither does your disagreeing with it absolve you of your responsibility for knowingly and repeatedly saying things others will reasonably be offended by.
Great, we have agreed on the difference between "offending" and "taking offense". Because I also can choose to be offended, and indeed I am, by quite a number of things people think and say - but this is just a fact of life that I accept and move on.
First off I never called you mentally ill, never said transphobia, or transphobic behavior constitute mental illnesses, they're just words used to represent a prejudice, discriminatory, and/or bigoted attitude related to rejection transgenderism as a legitimate condition. The DSM-V talks extensively about gender dysphoria and how the correct manner of addressing it, calling a trans woman a man at any time accordingly is patently incorrect. Meaning you're using selective reading of the DSM for political reasons, that's not how medical manuals work. I never called you mentally ill, but insisting on not sharing any common decency is jerk behavior. Note, I'm not saying you are a jerk, just that you're behaving like one. Also regressiveness requires ignoring progress.
I'm aware of what is intended with those words, the fact remains that they use the name of a mental illness in a naked attempt to offend and discredit people with different opinions and values, to single out their political and ideological opponents not just as wrong, but malevolent. This very often distorts and offends the people subject of those epithets, trying to present them as some sorts of "racists".
As for the selective reading, I assume that the DSM is referring to a person's chosen identity, while I refer to their biology - it is all the more confusing that the same pronouns cover both meanings.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Non-sequitur! Genetics are not objective, verifiable truth. I was born physically male and assigned male at birth, I have XX chromosomes, I transitioned to living as a female, I have not had SRS. In a casual conversation there are two pieces of information you are not going to have about the person you're talking to; their genetic profile, and their genitals. You have way too thin a comfort zone if you're defaulting to genetics, because in a casual encounter that is information you cannot have, you're also ignoring the existance of XX males, XY females, and people with XXY, XXXY, XXYY, and etc chromosomal setups. Genetics isn't the set-in-stone object truth you seem think it is.
See you're the one making assumptions, because you're putting everything on genetics, which you don't seem to understand as well as you think you do. Again that's not information you're going to have, unless you genetically test everyone you talk to in person before you gender them, which is realistically really unreasonable. So I'm gonna say on this subject you're all full of assumptions and scientific misunderstandings.
One assumption I will make, if we met in person and you had no idea that I am the same person attached to the forum name I have here... You'd be referring to me using female pronouns. I actually know this for a fact, because I pass as female well enough that people who don't know I'm trans refer to me as female. I only ever get misgendered after a friend who knows I'm trans outs me to strangers. Even after I'm outed most strangers still refer to me as female, many who want to misgender me as male usually can't do it, as it almost makes them visibly physically uncomfortable, due to how feminine I look and present.
At any rate the genetic argument doesn't excuse behaving with a lack of basic respect and common decency. Misgendering people on the basis of sex over gender identity is objectively insensitive, disrespectful, offensive, and dangerous to the person you're misgendering. You already pointed out that you wouldn't misgender a feminine cisgender man, or a masculine cisgender woman, so doing insisting on misgendering trans folk is at best a double standard.
Fair enough - if I didn't knew your genetics there would be absolutely nothing wrong in addressing you with the wrong words because of your appearance; precisely because you can dress and behave the way you want regardless of them. I still contest that using sex-based pronouns constitutes a lack of respect or decency. Because it's not nor it is implied by me.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Gender identity and sexual preference are separate and different things. Being transgender is not a sexual preference. I hope we're clear on that now.
I want to be absolutely clear on something here, now, with no wiggle room. When universities gather statistics on the transgender community they find that at least 41% of respondents have attempted suicide. That's 41% of transgender people, who have attempted suicide, not counting the ones that succeeded in actually committing suicide. Do you know what causes this? Social rejection and an inability to access transition. What you're doing is contributing to that culture which results in a society that damages trans people, that's not guilt by association, you've actually contributed to a culture that harms trans people, by rejecting our conditions. I'm part of the 59% who have never attempted suicide, mostly because through out my life I've been accepted at least by the people who really matter to me, because I've never experienced an inability to access medical transitional care. The views you're endorsing through out your post here are the views that contribute to trans folk being discriminated against in housing, employment, and access to services, in being unable to transition, in being rejected from society. Please understand that's not guilt by association, it's active contribution, no matter how small, to the problems trans folk face.
Finally, most people disregard buzzword terms like transphobia, homophobia, and islamophobia, they're pretty empty terms any more. They're not silencing you. What needs to stop in culture is the exclusion and devaluation of people for being different.
I have again to disagree with the bold statement (emphasis mine). We all have to contend with other people's expectations and opinions; promoting and encouraging models of behavior do not damage in any way those that, through no fault of their own, are unable or unwilling to live up to them.
My set of values do not have the well-being and satisfaction of myself at their core; rather I expect to face difficulties and to have to go against my own interest and selfish ego in order to channel my potential toward the public good; according to your logic, this would "contribute to a culture which results in a society that damages people" (unable or unwilling to live up to such expectations).
This, at best, is a slippery slope.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Why? Because in both cases it's the right thing to do, using correct gender pronouns for one group, but not another is a double standard.
You are using pronouns relative to one's gender identity, I am using pronouns related to one's sex (if known). There is no contradiction as we are referring to two different things.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Your explanation regarding sexual reproductive capability threw infertile people, people born without reproductive parts(like women born without a uterus, men born without testicles), and intersex people under the bus. As in you just dismissed their existence entirely. People are not the sum of our reproductive parts, we do not form personalities from our reproductive parts, thus reproductive parts are also not an excuse for misgendering people.
That's because just dressing and acting like the opposite gender isn't the same thing as being transgender. There is a lot of neuro-scientific evidence that points to the fact that trans women have brains much the same as cisgender women, and trans men have brains of cis men, and non-binary identifying people fall somewhere between. That's objective scientific fact for you. Even if you dressed and acted like the opposite gender, so long as you're gender identity aligned with your sex assigned at birth, you'd use the pronouns of the sex you're assigned at birth. Chiefly because in such case you wouldn't be transgender. Why is that so hard to understand?
I can acknowledge this, but I still don't see how this relates to my position.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I see you didn't answer the question there. Would you have switched gender pronouns if you found out someone you thought was one gender was assigned the opposite one at birth?
It might help if you looked outside your own perspective, because as a trans person I can tell you your statements do actually come off as offensive.
I left that last part outside the spoilers for a reason, because this is a very sensitive topic, especially because there are trans people active in this thread. Emanuele Cirachi, I apologize if I've come off as overly harsh, but this situation is sensitive especially considering the people who are participating.
I said it again: i bear no ill will toward you or anyone else, but if truth offends you then you should stop a little to think about why you feel offended.
You know, the alert to this quote came right on the heels of me saying I don't think Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is all that bad. I was just sure I was going to open my inbox and see someone calling me a traitor to cinematic history or something.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
I don't know for certain of course, it's an assumption based on his appearance, name, pronouns used and the news that he has now chosen to adopt a female identity.
Then what you keep representing as objective facts is nothing but a bundle of prejudices based on superficial observations that you can't possibly verify except with another assumption, this one outcome-determinative based on a begging the question fallacy.
First off I never called you mentally ill, never said transphobia, or transphobic behavior constitute mental illnesses, they're just words used to represent a prejudice, discriminatory, and/or bigoted attitude related to rejection transgenderism as a legitimate condition. The DSM-V talks extensively about gender dysphoria and how the correct manner of addressing it, calling a trans woman a man at any time accordingly is patently incorrect. Meaning you're using selective reading of the DSM for political reasons, that's not how medical manuals work. I never called you mentally ill, but insisting on not sharing any common decency is jerk behavior. Note, I'm not saying you are a jerk, just that you're behaving like one. Also regressiveness requires ignoring progress.
I'm aware of what is intended with those words, the fact remains that they use the name of a mental illness in a naked attempt to offend and discredit people with different opinions and values, to single out their political and ideological opponents not just as wrong, but malevolent. This very often distorts and offends the people subject of those epithets, trying to present them as some sorts of "racists".
Well in most cases when people spout rhetoric that's linked with an active hate movement, they get associated with said hate movement. Adamantly refusing to use correct gender pronouns with trans people, the correct gender pronouns are by consensus based on gender identity and presentation, is how transphobic movements attempt to invalidate trans folk.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
As for the selective reading, I assume that the DSM is referring to a person's chosen identity, while I refer to their biology - it is all the more confusing that the same pronouns cover both meanings.
First of transgender people do not chose to be trans, gender identity is not a choice, we do not chose to have gender dysphoria either. If you've read the DSM-V and paid attention to the section of the DSM-V dealing with Gender Dysphoria, you'd know that it's not a choice. Second the brain is a valid biological system and it's where all of the important parts of human personality, identity, and such are formed. Trans women for example have brains that work on female norms, that's biology. On the other hand reproductive organs contribute nothing to who a person actually is, just how they reproduce. Gendering based on the latter also requires knowing private information about a person that the public is not entitled to. We gender based on how someone presents themselves, so it's still incorrect to suddenly swap pronouns if you find out they have different genitals at birth.
Fair enough - if I didn't knew your genetics there would be absolutely nothing wrong in addressing you with the wrong words because of your appearance; precisely because you can dress and behave the way you want regardless of them. I still contest that using sex-based pronouns constitutes a lack of respect or decency. Because it's not nor it is implied by me.
If by wrong words you mean using female pronouns for me and addressing me as a female... Seriously? I pass as female, in fact my life experience is that of being unable to pass as male despite being born physically male, part of that is I started transition young. Also being trans isn't just about dressing and behaving like the opposite sex, it's way more of that and it's fundamentally tied into a biological system, the brain. The brain decides who a person is, not their genitals. Finally you can contest it all you want using sex based pronouns exclusively is not only disrespectful, but it's also dishonest to think you're always doing it that way. You probably have met a lot of trans people who pass and used the pronouns of their gender identity, never knowing they're trans. Genitals don't matter is what I'm saying, that's private privileged information you're not automatically entitled to, nor that you always have. Switching gender pronouns on someone that's trans because you find out they're trans then is disrespectful, it's also dangerous. It's both in no small part because you're outing them publicly against their will, while also invalidating them as a person run by a brain, reducing them to their genitals. Selectively favoring genitals as a means to address someone with gendered pronouns isn't a defensible position for so many reasons.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Gender identity and sexual preference are separate and different things. Being transgender is not a sexual preference. I hope we're clear on that now.
Good now can you also understand that being trans means more than "dressing a certain way, and acting a certain way"? Because it really is deeper than that, there's a lot more to it than than, and that oversimplification is totally inaccurate on every level, especially a psychological level.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I want to be absolutely clear on something here, now, with no wiggle room. When universities gather statistics on the transgender community they find that at least 41% of respondents have attempted suicide. That's 41% of transgender people, who have attempted suicide, not counting the ones that succeeded in actually committing suicide. Do you know what causes this? Social rejection and an inability to access transition. What you're doing is contributing to that culture which results in a society that damages trans people, that's not guilt by association, you've actually contributed to a culture that harms trans people, by rejecting our conditions. I'm part of the 59% who have never attempted suicide, mostly because through out my life I've been accepted at least by the people who really matter to me, because I've never experienced an inability to access medical transitional care. The views you're endorsing through out your post here are the views that contribute to trans folk being discriminated against in housing, employment, and access to services, in being unable to transition, in being rejected from society. Please understand that's not guilt by association, it's active contribution, no matter how small, to the problems trans folk face.
Finally, most people disregard buzzword terms like transphobia, homophobia, and islamophobia, they're pretty empty terms any more. They're not silencing you. What needs to stop in culture is the exclusion and devaluation of people for being different.
I have again to disagree with the bold statement (emphasis mine). We all have to contend with other people's expectations and opinions; promoting and encouraging models of behavior do not damage in any way those that, through no fault of their own, are unable or unwilling to live up to them.
Except that you're doing something that is a classic tactic of damaging a person on a personal level in society. Having one's gender identity rejected publicly is dangerous because then people out us against our will, which makes us targets for assaults, sexual abuse, and murder. It's also personally damaging, most trans people are rejected their entire lives, you contributing to it is harmful, not helpful and it is a contributing factor to trans suicides. So while we have to contend with other people's expectations, being invalidated deep personal level and endangered publicly is not justifiable.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
My set of values do not have the well-being and satisfaction of myself at their core; rather I expect to face difficulties and to have to go against my own interest and selfish ego in order to channel my potential toward the public good; according to your logic, this would "contribute to a culture which results in a society that damages people" (unable or unwilling to live up to such expectations).
This, at best, is a slippery slope.
You say that, but people who do the same things you do also try to erase trans folk by taking our legal rights away... They say the same things you've been saying, they do it to invalidate and harm us, and you saying the same things is part of what gives them sway. Less a slippery slope, more deflecting the concept that adding to harmful attitudes is what supports them. Which in the treatment of women, civil rights, gay rights, and so on is a proven fact. People who do continue to support the structures of prejudice are actively oppressing others, that's why racial segregation actually was allowed for so long, because people backed casual racism.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Why? Because in both cases it's the right thing to do, using correct gender pronouns for one group, but not another is a double standard.
You are using pronouns relative to one's gender identity, I am using pronouns related to one's sex (if known). There is no contradiction as we are referring to two different things.
Gender identity is commonly considered correct by the law, medical, psychological, and scientific standards. You're still using birth sex as a means of invalidating a person's identity. Also, how in the world do you refer to intersex people, who may, or may not have been assigned the correct gender at birth? Besides I default to gendering people how they present, if they tell me they want to be gendered differently, I respect that because it's just the commonly decent thing to do. You're saying common decency is meaningless and that you're going to back systems used to oppress trans and intersex people regardless.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Your explanation regarding sexual reproductive capability threw infertile people, people born without reproductive parts(like women born without a uterus, men born without testicles), and intersex people under the bus. As in you just dismissed their existence entirely. People are not the sum of our reproductive parts, we do not form personalities from our reproductive parts, thus reproductive parts are also not an excuse for misgendering people.
It's a strawman, you ignored the existence of people who are intersex, infertile, born without reproductive parts, then you refused to address the point. Calling my point a strawman is a strawman in this case.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
That's because just dressing and acting like the opposite gender isn't the same thing as being transgender. There is a lot of neuro-scientific evidence that points to the fact that trans women have brains much the same as cisgender women, and trans men have brains of cis men, and non-binary identifying people fall somewhere between. That's objective scientific fact for you. Even if you dressed and acted like the opposite gender, so long as you're gender identity aligned with your sex assigned at birth, you'd use the pronouns of the sex you're assigned at birth. Chiefly because in such case you wouldn't be transgender. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because what you've been asserting is that's what all transgender people are. People who dress and act like the opposite sex, nothing more, that's what you've been asserting transgender people are.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I see you didn't answer the question there. Would you have switched gender pronouns if you found out someone you thought was one gender was assigned the opposite one at birth?
I changed that because you're actively rejecting medicine, psychology, psychiatric, and scientific standards regarding trans people. So you would be switching to using the incorrect pronoun, both by objective consensus and social standards. You'd also be putting any trans person you did this to in danger, if you do it in a public place, because it puts a massive target for violence and abuse on our backs.
Emanuele Ciriachi said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
It might help if you looked outside your own perspective, because as a trans person I can tell you your statements do actually come off as offensive.
I left that last part outside the spoilers for a reason, because this is a very sensitive topic, especially because there are trans people active in this thread. Emanuele Cirachi, I apologize if I've come off as overly harsh, but this situation is sensitive especially considering the people who are participating.
I said it again: i bear no ill will toward you or anyone else, but if truth offends you then you should stop a little to think about why you feel offended.
Except your stance doesn't represent truth, objectivity, or factual correctness. Your position is in truth a tool used to discredit trans life experiences and justify discriminatory tactics used by cissexist and transphobic people against transgender people. You have no factual, truthful, objective, legal, scientific, medical, psychiatric, or social standards to back you up here. You're using your subjective ideas about gender and sex to justify invalidating trans people, that's what makes it offensive. You've rejected all objective standards and clung purely to your subjective view, so with that I can see we're not going to have any agreement. So I'll just say, have a good life and I hope you realize your subjective prejudice here, for the sake of any trans people you may find your self in a close relationship with.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
