• 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

I don't see why it would matter - if such a thing as a female quota existed, why could trans women not be included in women?

If I were the CEO, that's how it would be.

I find it interesting you think there's a problem.

Sport is a little different, because of the obvious strength difference between males and females, but sports organisations have met this question already and it seems to be working, so I don't think there's any problem there either.

How do you not see there's a problem, and then mention a problem? Such problems will always arise when there is a mismatch between reality and how I prefer to think about it.

Uncontrollable urge? Wow.

If it's controllable, why didn't the young man in the OP just switch to gain the acceptance he desired? At least he'd be alive.

What's wrong with being able to choose? If someone wants to live as a woman for whatever reason, bully for them is my call.

Because there are actual facts involved. However, if those facts do not intrude on the rest of the world, they can be safely ignored. But in the case before us, those facts did intrude. It was the collision between how his family and peers viewed him and how he viewed himself - or am I mistaken there?

If you think those are analogous, I probably can't help you.

Perhaps I can help you.

What's wrong with accepting someone's self identification?

Nothing, necessarily, outside of legal lines. You can't, for instance, accept a minor's self-identification as "ready for sex" without running afoul of statutory rape provisions. But generally, there isn't anything "wrong" with it. It's just that most of us would prefer to live in an objective reality. We think there are consequences when we ignore the facts in favor of being nice - but we do it all the time. I'm not going to insist someone's butt really does look big in that dress.

The problem is you can't regulate this sort of thing and you can't simply wave away the consequences. If you recognize the attitudes in play (as mentioned by the suicidal teen), you surely must acknowledge there is a danger in simply wishing away the animus. This kid needed support and help, not just well-wishing and castigating the society which rejected him.

Why would you need to emphasise the person was born gender ......?

And why would he need to emphasize some alternative? Logically, if we are going to talk about the importance of some category, don't we have to admit that the category exists?

Thankfully, the young generation today is far more accepting than I would have thought possible.

My daughter (aged 15) has two TG friends, one MtF and the other FtM. They both get almost total support from other kids at school. which is heartening.

Luckily, your kind of thinking is being replaced quickly.

And yet... I highlighted the special labels you have used to identify a sub-class of people in a manner you say doesn't matter. I hope this hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.
 
Better that she not have done it at all.

But the, "Oh, poor, poor, depressed person, nevermind that she might have killed other people" apology is pretty lame.

Other peoples' lives matter, too. If someone is so depressed that self harm is a possibility, I wish they would get help. Failing that, however, I would ask that they please not kill themselves in such a way as to harm others on their way out. I don't think that's asking too much.

Well, since the U.S. mental health system has been in shambles for...basically, our entire history, I'd kinda understand. Much sympathy for the driver who ended up hitting her, I hope he or she is okay, of course. That has to be traumatic in and of itself

But, at least in this country, you basically need to know where to go before you'll get any help at all, and then have support for it. and in Leelah's case, as in many others, that simply isn't there. So, instead of getting help that, possibly, isn't even available, some folks simply spiral off. And this, certainly was easier in a way than taking pills or putting up a noose, or any of that.

I don't approve, per se, but someone in that place can't really even see the pain that others might feel. As is isissxn said (and I'll paraphrase), this is much more about just pure, unrelenting pain, than about logic. The thinking is often less "I want to die" and much more "I'm doing everyone around me a favor".
 
Chosen gender is chosen gender, and that is now the legal situation in many countries.

Earlier on, you also stated:

Science doesn't designate gender, society does.

The law says that people can choose a gender, so science can go and whistle.

I'd really like to know in which countries the law is as you state it is. I only know about the local situation, where people have been able to change their sex legally for quite a while. This involves getting a new name, new identity documents, probably even a new number in the national population register, although I'm not sure about that last bit (that register, for some reason, assigns even numbers to women and odd numbers to men, so it seems one should get a different one). But that change can only be made if a person has really gone all the way, so to speak, IOW has had all the operations, and doctors certify to that. You also can't get those operations, and all the therapy leading up to them, until psychologists and psychiatrists have agreed that it is justified. It's definitely not just a matter of self-identification, and involves a long medico-legal process. From what little I know about it, I thought similar arrangements existed in other countries. So where are these "many countries" where science and anatomy doesn't matter, and one's legal sex is based solely on self-identification?

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.

How is this different from stating: "The personal reality is that which any person is entitled to feel - for instance, that they're transgender. It's fine for them to feel like that - they just need to keep it to themselves."

It seems that to you, some personal realities should be expressed publicly, and treated with the utmost respect by everyone else, including the law, but other personal realities should be kept as a dirty little secret.

My personal interest in this matter is solely based on long-standing curiosity about just when and how the letter T was added to the ever-expanding LGB acronym. I've never understood what the issue has to do with being gay or bi, especially since I was taught at school, way back in the 1970s, that they were entirely separate things, and only stupid people thought homosexuality had anything to do with transgender issues (the word "transgender" of course not having been invented yet). Yet somehow, somewhere, someone must have decided that there is a joint LGBT "community". I'm pretty certain that the somewhere is the USA, and efforts to export the concept haven't yet fully succeeded outside the anglosphere. But it remains somewhat of a mystery to me.
 
Again, all this demonstrates is that your understanding of depression and suicidal ideation is abysmal.


You really don't know how wrong you are.

I've lived with crushing depression. I'm largely over it now. Short version, my wife left with the children both under 10 years. I never cheated or was at all abusive, but in Japan it basically means I can only see my kids when she feels like it. She generally doesn't feel like it. That's lasted for a long time.

In my darkest moments, I would get up, go teach class, and then collapse in my office several times a day. Medication helped.

So, yeah, you're very wrong.

Still, if I had decided to pull the plug, I would have had the common courtesy not to hurt anyone else in the process.
 
I'd really like to know in which countries the law is as you state it is. I only know about the local situation, where people have been able to change their sex legally for quite a while. This involves getting a new name, new identity documents, probably even a new number in the national population register, although I'm not sure about that last bit (that register, for some reason, assigns even numbers to women and odd numbers to men, so it seems one should get a different one). But that change can only be made if a person has really gone all the way, so to speak, IOW has had all the operations, and doctors certify to that. You also can't get those operations, and all the therapy leading up to them, until psychologists and psychiatrists have agreed that it is justified. It's definitely not just a matter of self-identification, and involves a long medico-legal process. From what little I know about it, I thought similar arrangements existed in other countries. So where are these "many countries" where science and anatomy doesn't matter, and one's legal sex is based solely on self-identification?

I used to think as you do and believed that, in order to change your gender, you had to have an operation. I thought that having genitals conferred gender. Vagina = woman and penis = man. However, I realized that there are several problems with this. For example: What happens if you lose your genitals somehow? Are you no longer a man or a woman? What if a man woke up one morning with a vagina instead of a penis, and nothing else had changed? Would "he" suddenly become a "she"? If a man is attracted to a trans woman, does that make him gay?

Additionally, people don't judge gender based upon what's between your legs in day-to-day life, usually because it's impossible. When you meet somebody, you make a judgment as to whether they're a man or a woman without asking them to drop their pants or lift their skirt. (At least, I hope so!) You can't ask for a DNA test before going to bed with somebody. You make the judgment based upon things like dress, vocal tones, mannerisms, general appearance, etc.

Traditionally, society has conferred gender based upon sex, i.e. what's between your legs. However, many argue that it makes more sense to consider sex and gender separate things. So, it's possible (albeit rarely) to be born with female parts and be a man, and vice versa. There is some science to back this up, as well. Transgender brains are different from cisgender ones. There are similarities between a the brain of a trans-woman and a woman that don't exist between a trans-woman and a man.

If you were to show people photos of trans-women and cisgendered women, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Sure, some trans-women look like men in drag, but many do not. Some cisgender women, born with a vagina, look like men in drag. Some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen are trans. Does that make me bisexual now? No, clearly that's ridiculous, because the traits I'm attracted to aren't masculine ones. I have to conclude that sex and gender should be different things.

How is this different from stating: "The personal reality is that which any person is entitled to feel - for instance, that they're transgender. It's fine for them to feel like that - they just need to keep it to themselves."

It seems that to you, some personal realities should be expressed publicly, and treated with the utmost respect by everyone else, including the law, but other personal realities should be kept as a dirty little secret.

There's a large (and growing) body of evidence that transgender people are born that way. You don't make a conscious decision whether to be a man or a woman. You do make a conscious decision about what you believe, though. So, if you decide that trans people are "not normal", that's an opinion (NOT something you were born with). Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when other people treat you differently for it. If someone walked around telling people that Jews or gays were "not normal", do you think it should be treated with the "utmost respect"?
 
Last edited:
My personal interest in this matter is solely based on long-standing curiosity about just when and how the letter T was added to the ever-expanding LGB acronym. I've never understood what the issue has to do with being gay or bi, especially since I was taught at school, way back in the 1970s, that they were entirely separate things, and only stupid people thought homosexuality had anything to do with transgender issues (the word "transgender" of course not having been invented yet). Yet somehow, somewhere, someone must have decided that there is a joint LGBT "community". I'm pretty certain that the somewhere is the USA, and efforts to export the concept haven't yet fully succeeded outside the anglosphere. But it remains somewhat of a mystery to me.
I wondered about that too and talked about it with a transgendered friend of mine (who also happens to be gay) and he agreed that it was strange. Gender and sexual orientation are not linked (well, statistically they are, since most people identify as straight) so why lump gender identity and sexual identity together into one 'community'?
I'm afraid it has something to do with the fact that both groups are (have been?) seen as deviants by society at large. And the presumption that someone who has an issue with their genitals will have a sexual reason for it. So the budding trans movement could only look to the gay community for support, since in the public's eye, they're all dirty weirdo's anyway.

I have it from the same friend that, ironically, anti-trans predjudice and hatred are more pronounced in the gay scene. Transgendered individuals tend to be seen either as imposters who want to encroach on gay territory, or as looking to deny their sexual deviation from the norm by dressing it up as a gendered deviation from the norm, denying the importance of the LGB movement. (This is all anecdotal of course, I cannot cite any research for this)
 
From that link:

(highlighting mine).
I'm confused now. Shouldn't the highlighted word "sex" be "gender"? Or is a straight man dating a trans-woman suddenly gay?

It's...complicated. I agree that there should also be an explanation of the issue of "gender orientation". A cis-male seeking sex with penises is, by definition, "homosexual" (or at least, "bisexual". A cis-male seeking sex with a trans-female (post-surg) could be defined as "heterosexual"; a cis-male seeking the company of trans-females could be defined as "heterogender". Binary words do nbot a spectrum encompass...
 
/tangent

What gets me about religion is the preaching "you're going to hell if you do this" while someone's alive, then the automatic "they're in Heaven now" once they die.

Or in this case hell to be eternally tortured for committing suicide. Because that is how a loving and forgiving god rolls.
 
People don't grow out of homosexuality so your comparison is invalid.

Some people who identified as homosexual now don't, what does that mean? If some people grow out of it then how should it be treated? What % of people who identify as such then later change their identification means it is or isn't valid?

Sure there is the argument that they were really bisexual all along, and just changed their preferred gender in partner, and their identification was a form of bisexual erasure, there is a lot of merit in that but the point stands that people change their identified sexuality.
 
Hold on, hold on...

You seem to be acting like it is some weird, fringe, idiosyncratic, hateful prejudice for someone to expect that when they get into a sexual relationship with someone who appears to be of a particular sex, that that person is in fact of that sex, was born of that sex, and is fully biologically that sex complete with the corresponding chromosomes and that one can reasonably assume that reproduction with that person is possible.

I'm sorry, but that is a bedrock part of the normal human experience that cannot just be brushed off as "oh why should I be looking out for someone's weird hang ups?"

So do you for example demand that they have been tested and to be notified if they for example have androgen insensitivity before dating someone? I mean clearly you wouldn't date someone who you knew had that, you are quite clear about that, but what level of medical testing needs to become standard and to be shared with potential dates?

Have you been screened for XX male syndrome? If not how can you assure your partners that you are biologically male and capable of having children? Sure the odds are 4-5/100,000 but that isn't the point is it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's a tough one to sell considering every single ciswoman I posed the question "Would you be upset if your date asked you if you had a penis or were born a man ?" answered with a loud yes.

It's really up to the non-standard person to let potential partners know that there might be a little surprise in store.

https://twitter.com/sophiaphotos/status/498327414003347459

What about the men here, how would they react to that question?
 
The people you are discussing are not transgender. They are intersexed. Totally different things.

And not necessarily obviously so, so they could simply assume that they do not have a rare chromosomal abnormality. And as the standard for dating skeptic tank included being XX, clearly intersex individuals are not datable either and need to disclose that as well before being allowed to date him.

Now we just need to establish if he was born with a penis and doesn't have any kind of intersex condition.
 
A "colloquial" definition?

Transgender is a word in the English language that means a certain thing. This meaning can be found in any modern dictionary.

Intersexed is a word in the English language that means a different thing. That meaning, also, can be found in any modern dictionary.

They are not the same thing, and both definitions are perfectly compliant with modern science. In your examples, you described intersexed individuals. You did not describe transgender individuals.

As the definition of who is female and thus dateable provided by skeptic tank would preclude either, it is relevant to that portion of the discussion.
 
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.

So he demands medical records up front? Clearly people are doing it wrong, pregnancy should come first then dating or how else can one prove fertility.
 
You really don't know how wrong you are.

I've lived with crushing depression. I'm largely over it now. Short version, my wife left with the children both under 10 years. I never cheated or was at all abusive, but in Japan it basically means I can only see my kids when she feels like it. She generally doesn't feel like it. That's lasted for a long time.

In my darkest moments, I would get up, go teach class, and then collapse in my office several times a day. Medication helped.

So, yeah, you're very wrong.

Still, if I had decided to pull the plug, I would have had the common courtesy not to hurt anyone else in the process.

This is unfortunate and I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it doesn't mean much of anything. For one it is assuming the depression is about events, and it isn't.
 
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.

If you're saying that evolutionary pressure to reproduce is what makes men horrified at the thought of having sex with or marrying an infertile female transexual, then what about young, attractive women who have had hysterectomies? I don't think the average man would be horrified at the thought of having sex with such a woman, even if he wanted children in the future and therefore didn't want to marry her.

So then the question comes: What about a female transexual who doesn't appear infertile? Why would a man's reaction to her be different from his reaction to a woman who's had a hysterectomy?
 
What about the men here, how would they react to that question?
It's clearly not a standard question. By all means one can push to make it a standard question, but it isn't. Given how rare trans-sexualism is, I'd have thought one would be viewed as a bit of a nut for asking. There are many other things that one could reasonably be assumed to need some warning of, but are so low odds that you just wouldn't ask.
 

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