• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

Truer word was never spoken, boy. :D

Of course, there are plenty of decent people out there fighting the good equality fights (figuratively speaking) and looking past arbitrary beauty standards. But the reality is, a good chunk of people subscribe to them, unwaveringly. And I've just learned to expect it, though I don't for a moment condone it. :)

I think your last paragraph has some good food for thought...
I agree with mudcat quite completely, but please forgive me if I differ slightly on your own evaluation insofar as "toadishness" is concerned. No agenda. Just sayin...
 
Teen suicide. Huh, when does that ever happen? Are we to have 7 pages of special pleading for a teen suicide? If so, why?

Never mind, I just looked at the Amanda Knox Thread.
Back to your usual ....

Teen suicide is exaggerated by the media. The majority of (non celebrity) suicide stories in the media are about teenagers giving the false impression that they comprise the majority of suicides. This is not the case.
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
 
The fact is, there is a reason that people commit suicide; and it's always the result of some sort of pain or mental disorder. This kid was seriously traumatized by her parents. She was told she was evil or sick or otherwise "wrong", that he didn't belong, that she was less valuable to her parent than their religious beliefs and social standing. At a time in her life when a person is least capable of handling such trauma.

I think it's important to memorialize their deaths; because it's important for people to know how broken our culture is. How destructive and outright vicious it can be to those who don't "fit in", who break some religiously-dictated rules about who they are allowed and required to be. If that motivates others to commit suicide; then the response should not be "well, we should stop allowing videos". That's profoundly stupid, and just another example of the problem that has caused so many suicides. The appropriate response should be to try and understand why these kids think that their only option for gaining understanding and respect is through suicide; and do something to fix that.

Someone in this thread said that they couldn't condemn this person's parents, because at least they didn't kick her out. I disagree. They did far worse. If they had kicked her out, there's a chance she would have managed to find help. There are resources out there, and she already had a small support network. But her parents did worse than that, they isolated her, effectively imprisoned her, and destroyed what little support she already had.

:clap:
 
Gay men have a limited pool of potential mates, but no one (well, few people) would say that straight males should be encouraged to take gay mates. However, it doesn't seem unreasonable to tell a squeamish male to just get over himself and accept a female as female, regardless how she was born.

Is a male dislike of transexual mates inborn and unchangeable, or is it one of those prejudices that fade as society changes?

Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it, because it wouldn't bother me. I'd be far more concerned about having compatible interests, personalities, likes and dislikes, etc.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but some people actually do choose mates with some desire to find one with a complementary, functioning reproductive system for the purpose of using those reproductive systems with each other to produce zygotes that grow into children. Not everybody, of course, but substantial numbers of people want to do this, perhaps even the majority. It would be difficult to convince me that this desire, when present, is simply a prejudice that will fade as society changes, unless it starts being like Brave New World, in which case, the technology could probably be applied to making a John Varley world of complete and reversible sex-changes. That, however, is quite some time off, if it ever happens.

I'm not monogamous, so this isn't really a limitation for me. But, currently, mononormativity is strong, and in that context, telling a "squeamish" male that he should give up the chance of having children with his DNA, except perhaps if he can afford a surrogate, doesn't seem all that OK. In fact, it seems to me officious enough to compete with telling someone they have to be their birth gender for the rest of their lives. If people did it strongly enough, it might become associated with one or two suicides as well.
 
I will be interested to read your source for this claim.

I suppose that if anyone who is being prayed for ever experiences spontaneous remission of cancer, that "small proportion" is enough to prove the efficacy of intercessory prayer (and the concomitant existence of 'god')...

If you wanted me to source the claim that the majority of transgender children grow out it you should have asked when I stated it a dozen posts ago instead of going in circles with your various strawman arguments. You made the unsupported claim that "pretending it'll 'go away' doesn't work." When I pointed out that children do often grow out of it, you made a horrendously invalid comparison to homosexuality.
 
I'm not sure why that's a "questionable" statement exactly.

Maybe if I ask whether the word "negro" is something you'd use when talking about African-Americans, because that is entirely analogous.

You can find plenty of feminists and people within the LGBTQ world who insist that someone cannot become a woman, but must be born one. There are feminists who bristle at the idea of a man being able to just choose to be something they view as a sort of sacred victim status. Perhaps these are some of the more intensely anti-male feminists who hate the idea of a male being able to lay claim to femininity in that way, I don't know.

But the point is, this is not something there is unanimity about within the progressive/LGBTQ/feminist world, or the academic world, or really among anyone.

Yes there is. It is unanimous among trans women, and that's the only group that matters.

Nice of you to emphasise my point about women and trans women. Just because a subset of LGBT or feminists are pathetically bigoted on the subject does not make the bigotry ok.

It's a contentious topic so I'm not sure how you can act like there is some clearly right and clearly wrong opinion on it.

Simply because I'm right on this occasion and you are typing a load of nonsense that supports bigotry.

Like this, for instance:

Although many may say it for bigoted, hurtful reasons... this doesn't change the fact that the weight of reality is most firmly behind the idea that a trans "woman" is a man.

That may well be your personal reality.

Thankfully, you're in a shrinking group and even legislation is catching up, with biological traits not now necessary to determine gender in the more enlightened civilisations.

Nobody I'm aware of says that a soldier in a war whose male genitalia are blown off by an IED is now female. So it cannot simply be that removing those magically makes one a female.

And thanks for that comment, because it displays why bigotry is so absurd. Having a penis has nothing to do with gender, as many many pre-op transgender women will tell you.

They don't all want or have full sexual organ reassignment surgery, you know.

That isn't meant to be an insulting or demeaning or downplaying comparison.

Then you've done an exceptionally bad job, because that's exactly what it looks like. Amazing how you can give the exact opposite impression to what you wanted, eh?

It's just the comparison that popped to mind as a way to demonstrate this basic, non-hateful, non-controversial assertion: desire is not a determining factor of something like this, and certainly not among skeptics.

What does desire have to do with it?
 
(much snipped because this jumped out at me)

That may well be your personal reality.

Thankfully, you're in a shrinking group and even legislation is catching up, with biological traits not now necessary to determine gender in the more enlightened civilisations.

Is there a way to pierce the problem of "personal reality?" If biological traits are going to be abandoned, what objective standard might replace it as a means to determine gender? (In, as you say, a "more enlightened civilization?")
 
It's difficult for me to be objective about this story because one of my best friends, now deceased, was transgender.

She had a difficult time of it (to put it mildly) during her transition but picked herself up and was an editor at a PC magazine when she died. I still miss her.

My friend's story was very different from Leelah Alcorn's. She transitioned when she was an adult and was never to my knowledge suicidal. I might have killed myself if I had gone through some of the **** she went through.

I find some of the attitudes expressed here appalling but as I said I can't be completely objective on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Having a penis has nothing to do with gender

Help me understand then. Is gender entirely separate from sex? So, do you use male/female to designate one's sex, and man/woman to designate one's gender?

If having a penis or not having one has nothing whatsoever to do with being a man, in your view, then how does one's gender get determined?

Is it something anyone can change at any time on a whim? And this should be treated seriously by everyone else?

What you seem to be advocating for (correct me if I'm wrong) is a paradigm where "you are what you say and feel you are, irrespective of what your biology is" - is that fair?

If so, how is a standard which ignores hard, objective biological traits in favor of someone's beliefs in any way compatible or consistent with skeptical and objectivist thinking?
 
Surely you aren't suggesting that it is only insignificant if it is hidden, are you?

The point of my post is that whether or not it is hidden, and whether or not it conforms to common male or female expectations, it does not determine gender. Skeptic Tank had suggested that if one had had gender reassignment surgery, it didn't matter what sort of equipment you were born with, at least according to the transgender agenda. I was affirming what he said, but noting that the gender reassignment surgery was not a necessary condition. Even if there had been no surgery, and one still had the original equipment, it was not relevant to gender. Self identification is what determines gender.

ETA: And, by saying "in most cases" are you noting that there are exceptions? Would you care to expound on what conditions might exist that are not "most cases"?
The only case where I'd think it was relevant would be romantic attraction (and possibly sexual attraction as well)
If you're in love with someone and you want to share (at least the next part of) your life with them, it's a rather large part of your past and identity you're not being truthful about.
If it's just about sex I'd say it depends. If the other party wouldn't be able to tell, then your presentation and their perception of your gender correspond, so no need to make things more complicated, go ahead, bump uglies, have breakfast and leave. If you're afraid they might 'discover' you're 'different' during sex, you could be opening yourself up to abuse. Even if you don't think there's a moral issue with withholding intimate details at this moment, there are practical considerations.
But on the whole, in my day to day life, I don't give a damn about what gender or sex someone is, what they looked like when they were born, what their genitals look like, what chromosomes they have, what toilet they feel most comfortable in, or how they self-identify. I'll just treat them as a person.
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but some people actually do choose mates with some desire to find one with a complementary, functioning reproductive system for the purpose of using those reproductive systems with each other to produce zygotes that grow into children. Not everybody, of course, but substantial numbers of people want to do this, perhaps even the majority. It would be difficult to convince me that this desire, when present, is simply a prejudice that will fade as society changes, unless it starts being like Brave New World, in which case, the technology could probably be applied to making a John Varley world of complete and reversible sex-changes. That, however, is quite some time off, if it ever happens.

I'm not monogamous, so this isn't really a limitation for me. But, currently, mononormativity is strong, and in that context, telling a "squeamish" male that he should give up the chance of having children with his DNA, except perhaps if he can afford a surrogate, doesn't seem all that OK. In fact, it seems to me officious enough to compete with telling someone they have to be their birth gender for the rest of their lives. If people did it strongly enough, it might become associated with one or two suicides as well.

You missed the point by a mile. If a man wants a fertile female, he'll turn down all infertile ones, but the question would be whether he finds all infertile females gross and icky, or just transexual ones. If it's just transexual ones, then we'll need to see if that's something that fades as society changes, or whether it's an inborn and unchangeable feeling.
 
I'm not sure why that's a "questionable" statement exactly.
(...)

I have to hand it to you, that's one of the most elaborate attempted justifications for profound ignorance and bigoty I have ever seen. I have rarely seen both expressed quite so comprehensively. Right down to "I'm not a bigot, but..." not a note was missed.

If you are actually interested in learning something about gender identity, I would recommend picking up and reading a copy of Gender Outlaw by Kate Borenstein.
 
<snip>I find some of the attitudes expressed here appalling but as I said I can't be completely objective on this issue.

I appreciate the self-awareness.

I don't understand why people keep talking about appalling attitudes in this thread. There would appear to be a very high probability I'm one of the primary sources of these appalling attitudes.

But I have nothing but sympathy for people who are struggling with their sexual identity or who have an unconventional sexuality, sexual identity, self-perception, whatever.

I don't believe it's a choice. I believe it's something that results from forces largely or entirely outside of their control. How can I not be sympathetic toward someone in that situation? Especially if it tends to result in them feeling like a pariah or going through lives of being treated with revulsion and hurtful words.

I am extremely lucky to be very clearly male and masculine physically and mentally, very firmly heterosexual, white, first-world, able-bodied, healthy, tall, decent looking, etc. I'm fully aware that I'm lucky in these regards, and I have sympathy for people who have had more tortured, less conventional situations. I certainly don't desire to "pile on" and make their situations more difficult.

Unfortunately, my commitment to at least TRYING to be logical and objective means that I cannot let my sympathy influence things like how I use language or view biology. Though in inconsequential situations where accommodating someone by calling them "her" or "she" I'm certainly happy to do that, and wouldn't throw down with them over it or anything.

So I just don't understand what's appalling, hurtful, or offensive about trying to make sure we're not letting emotion and sympathy cloud our thinking about whether someone actually transmogrifies into something they weren't born as, or when I advocate the idea that transsexuals should be upfront and honest about their status ASAP when becoming romantically involved with someone.

Perhaps you can help me understand what has been appalling to you?
 
If you wanted me to source the claim that the majority of transgender children grow out it you should have asked when I stated it a dozen posts ago instead of going in circles with your various strawman arguments. You made the unsupported claim that "pretending it'll 'go away' doesn't work." When I pointed out that children do often grow out of it, you made a horrendously invalid comparison to homosexuality.

Actually, no.

You continue to make unsupported assertions.

Praps you should actually learn what a "straw person" argument is.

If you are claiming that the "majority of transgenderd children" "grow out of it", it is your privilege to support your claim.

"Often outgrow" =/= "pretending it will go away" is a valid solution.

Which ones "outgrow"?

How often is "often"?

What about the others?
 
So I just don't understand what's appalling, hurtful, or offensive about trying to make sure we're not letting emotion and sympathy cloud our thinking about whether someone actually transmogrifies into something they weren't born as

Do we know for sure that there's no such thing as a male or female brain? When there are people claiming they feel like a woman in a man's body, or vice versa, and they're satisfied once they can be treated in society as what they feel like, I think the skeptical view is to try to figure out what's going on, or if one isn't into the field of studying the human brain, to wait until scientists figure out what's going on.

Needlesss to say, not all people are that straightforward and easily "cured," but at least some are. And in those cases, I think the flaw is assuming that if their body is male, they've always been male through-and-through and can never be anything else.

If their brain has always been female, therefore making them see the world as a female since they were young enough to understand the difference, then it seems simply calling them male isn't an accurate use of the term "male," because they, the personality rather than the body, isn't male and never was.

We don't know enough yet to figure out for sure exactly what makes transexual's brains different, but I think it's too uncertain at this point to be able to declare without a doubt that there can be no possible feminine brain in a man's body, and therefore all men are men completely from birth.
 
Truer word was never spoken, boy. :D

Of course, there are plenty of decent people out there fighting the good equality fights (figuratively speaking) and looking past arbitrary beauty standards. ..



Because I'm sure you have evolved yourself completely beyond what some one looks like. I'm sure a 5ft4 300ilb man with 2 teeth in his head would be not judged by beauty at all.
 
Is there a way to pierce the problem of "personal reality?" If biological traits are going to be abandoned, what objective standard might replace it as a means to determine gender? (In, as you say, a "more enlightened civilization?")

I think you're confusing two separate statements.

The personal reality is that which any person is entitled to feel - for instance, that trans people are not normal. It's fine for them to feel like that - they just need to keep it to themselves.

Chosen gender is chosen gender, and that is now the legal situation in many countries.

Help me understand then. Is gender entirely separate from sex? So, do you use male/female to designate one's sex, and man/woman to designate one's gender?

No, they are both the same. You can talk about male and female sex organs, but it has zero to do with gender.

If having a penis or not having one has nothing whatsoever to do with being a man, in your view, then how does one's gender get determined?

It is determined by the person. Only he/she can know.

Is it something anyone can change at any time on a whim? And this should be treated seriously by everyone else?

I don't know of any cases where whims are involved, but if someone wishes to change on a whim, then that's fine. I don't think they'd be doing themselves or the wider TG community any favours, but it is that simple. If you identify as gender ............ then you are that.

The change is not generally something taken lightly.

What you seem to be advocating for (correct me if I'm wrong) is a paradigm where "you are what you say and feel you are, irrespective of what your biology is" - is that fair?

Sure. What could be unfair about it?

If so, how is a standard which ignores hard, objective biological traits in favor of someone's beliefs in any way compatible or consistent with skeptical and objectivist thinking?

Very easily. If your skepticism is ruled by "hard biological" evidence, then you're in trouble as soon as we get to intersex people for starters.

I'd expect a skeptic to be able to grasp the difference, but I'm not someone who identifies as skeptic, so maybe someone else can put it better.

But on the whole, in my day to day life, I don't give a damn about what gender or sex someone is, what they looked like when they were born, what their genitals look like, what chromosomes they have, what toilet they feel most comfortable in, or how they self-identify. I'll just treat them as a person.

Bravo!

But I have nothing but sympathy for people who are struggling with their sexual identity or who have an unconventional sexuality, sexual identity, self-perception, whatever.

Then maybe you could turn the sympathy into empathy and stop using language likely to distress transgender people.

As I keep saying, how you feel is irrelevant, it's public actions and word that hurt people.
 
You missed the point by a mile. If a man wants a fertile female, he'll turn down all infertile ones, but the question would be whether he finds all infertile females gross and icky, or just transexual ones. If it's just transexual ones, then we'll need to see if that's something that fades as society changes, or whether it's an inborn and unchangeable feeling.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I was responding to did not say just transsexual ones. You just brought that up, when it wasn't in what I was responding to, which is dishonest.

I'm pointing out a 500 pound gorilla. And, in your terms, the desire of a man not to be a mate of a transsexual woman may be as a result of wanting a fertile woman, of which, trans-women are not a subset. It's also possible that an aversion to trans-women is an effect of evolutionary pressure. There is some connection between standards of attractive mates and an impression of fecundity.

The reason that I bring it up is that people always talk about all those nice-sounding things like wanting companionship and sharing interests and love and blah blah blah, but they continue to use the word "mate," and making families is a central archetype of what being a "mate" is.

Furthermore, it is only recently in the West that those nice-sounding things were at all important. Sure, sharing interests and love and even sexual attraction were nice bonuses, but the primary reason for mating was to make a family, with secondary economic benefits. Since we're talking about changes in culture, where the culture comes from is an important consideration.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom