Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

[Donn]

I will own it. Having sex with a male repulses me. I don't have a rational explanation for why that is. I contend there are no rational explanations for sexual preference. I like what I like.

A brave post, well done. I also think there is no rational part. I think the "black box" of attraction and desire and the way it controls us like puppets is the explanation for so much of the hatred for the other - and for ourselves, although it's never spoken.

The fact that "I like what I like" makes what you like repulsive to me, if it strays from the categories that I know.

We should all just fess-up and say that we are not in control of our bodies and their gravities. We can control this knowing, however. We can learn that we have these prejudices and learn that our repulsion is harming other people!

 

[shuttlt]

My impression, possibly flawed, was that some posters were claiming that if somebodies gender was changed in law, then our internal categorisation of the person should change as well.

 

[Butter!]

My impression, possibly flawed, was that some posters were claiming that if somebodies gender was changed in law, then our internal categorisation of the person should change as well.

I'm not sure if some people feel that way (some probably do, I guess), but I honestly don't think it would be possible. It seems quite extreme.

I personally am not repulsed by transgender people or the notion of transgenderism (word? dunno) in the slightest, but in a strictly sexual/romantic sense, I am only attracted to men. It's always been that way, and there's simply nothing I can do about it. It's ingrained. It has nothing to do with reproduction or anything else. But I do like "boy parts." They are essential for my enjoyment of sexual activity. So I probably couldn't have sex with a transman who had a vagina - no matter how "manly" they looked otherwise (google Buck Angel) - because I am just not attracted to vaginas. I can accept a transman as a man, certainly, but I don't think it could be a sexual thing. The traditional man parts are a big part of sex for me. I certainly hope that doesn't make me a bigot.

 

[Giordano]

My impression, possibly flawed, was that some posters were claiming that if somebodies gender was changed in law, then our internal categorisation of the person should change as well.

I for one believe that one can internally believe what one wishes. But I believe that simple politeness calls for externally treating a person in society as you would anyone else, particularly if they are treating you politely. If someone's name is Elizabeth, but they tell you that they prefer to be called Beth, then call them Beth. If you secretly think Beth is a stupid nickname, there is no reason to let on publicly.

Oddly, the vast majority of people who I meet in a day do not match my internal ideal of physical beauty (that includes my own reflection in the bathroom mirror- perhaps it is broken?). But I don't feel the need to let them know that I find them less than fully attractive.

And again, I believe a strong understanding of biology makes categorization of a person as male or female more ambiguous than most think, and is by no means as binary as is often suggested. I do not think that it is typically important to mentally assign a gender to someone, particularly if they think of themselves otherwise. Based on the fact that most of the people I see each day are clothed, I usually have to take the word of someone as to their gender anyway.

 

[Lithrael]

This is what I don't get.

I have seen some men that transitioned into women and it's pretty darn hard if not impossible to tell they were once considered men.

And then I've seen men that transitioned into women and they look ridiculous. They don't even look remotely female, but rather like they are wearing a tacky Halloween costume. But yet..... they are just as happy. They say as much. In interviews they talk about how hard it was and how happy they are now. I wonder if it was so important to dress as a woman.... why are they still not upset that they look nothing like most females?

It's obvious their treatment worked. Can't quite understand why.

It's more comfortable to be a woman who fits all of the womanly expectations, sure. But it's still a lot better to be a woman who fits few of the womanly expectations than it is to be a woman who is stuck pretending to be a man, just because they already fit most of the manly expectations. Living as a gender you do not feel you are, for most people, sucks. Contrary to some of the colloquialisms thrown around in this thread, to such people, that is what usually feels like 'lying all the time,' while living as the gender you feel, feels like you have finally stopped lying. Of course it is stressful to run into people with the opposite feelings on the matter, but them's the breaks.

 

[Lithrael]

(...) So while I might agree that using "her" and "she" when referring to someone who is transsexual might be the right thing to do in terms of being polite and respectful to them, I don't see how you can act like it's some definitive truth that they are not a man.

I don't see how anyone could argue that the most evidence-based, skeptical, scientific, and logically-rooted stance is that they are a man for life no matter what they do.

And no, that's not a hateful stance to take. It's a realistic one. My daughter may desire more than anything in the world to be a princess, might dress like one, might insist she is one, and I might play along and call her one, but none of that will make it so.

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

You're taking the South Park line on this, which IMO is a misunderstanding of the situation and of gender.

Think of it more like, your daughter says she is a Star Trek fan. She might dress like one, might insist she is one, and you might play along and call her one. And there is no 'but'. It is just so. It's not that she wants to be a Star Trek fan. She is a Star Trek fan. How she feels simply is the same thing as what she is. This is what identity means.

Nothing about her body is even in the equation of 'is she really a Star Trek fan' at all.

What you are running into with your thinking, is all of the socially agreed upon traditions of what conditions you must fulfill in order to qualify as a man or a woman. Many people have found these conventions lacking and are in the process of trying to figure out something better (if not simpler).

 

[shuttlt]

With me, man parts and girls parts are part of it, but not all of it. One could look like Angelina Jolie and if she was born a man, it would be a problem.... boy parts or no.

 

[The Atheist]

... why didn't the young man in the OP ...

I was going to try to give you a rational response, but the snipped bit above, after 400-odd posts in this thread tells me not to waste my time, so I won't.

 

[Meadmaker]

The transgender supporter party line is that the gender of a person is determined solely by the person, regardless of any known physiological, chromosomal, or chemical characteristics of the person. If you self-identify as a woman, you are a woman. If you self-identify as a man, you are a man. Anyone who knows how you self-identify should respect that identification, and treat you as a person of that gender.


Here's where I think there is a logical problem with that.

It asserts that there are these categories, man and woman, that are significant and meaningful. If a person self-identifies as a man, it asserts that it is important to that person's happiness to be treated as a man. As altruistic people, followers of the golden rule, we are asked to treat them as they would wish to be treated, including treating them as the gender of their choice.

However, after exerting the existence of these categories, man and woman, it asserts that there is no objective measures by which one can determine whether or not a person is of one category or the other. It makes the categories incredibly important, asserting that it is necessary that we treat people as part of the appropriate category, and at the same time makes the categories meaningless, because they have no objective reality.

 

[Butter!]

With me, man parts and girls parts are part of it, but not all of it. One could look like Angelina Jolie and if she was born a man, it would be a problem.... boy parts or no.

As far as I know, there isn't a really convincing surgery for constructing a penis and/or testicles available for transmen at this time. But if one became available, and I honestly couldn't tell unless I was told - I don't know. It's hard to imagine. I don't think it would make a difference for me. But I can't know.

I don't think someone with your viewpoint is bigoted for having it. I think people who are disrespectful to transpersons in everyday life because they are disgusted by the notion are bigots. It's like Giordiano said upthread. It's all about treating people with respect, whether you understand and agree or not.

That's my take on it. I'm sure there are people out there who would disagree and say ANY level of discrimination (even internal, or related purely to sex/romance, or whatever) is bigotry and unacceptable. In their eyes, we would both be bigots. But I just don't think it's possible to change all of those perceptions internally. I think the important thing is treating everyone well, and respecting transpeople the same as any other people, using the pronouns they prefer, not giving them **** about using the restroom they feel comfortable using, etc.

 

[shuttlt]

You're taking the South Park line on this, which IMO is a misunderstanding of the situation and of gender.

Think of it more like, your daughter says she is a Star Trek fan. She might dress like one, might insist she is one, and you might play along and call her one. And there is no 'but'. It is just so. It's not that she wants to be a Star Trek fan. She is a Star Trek fan. How she feels simply is the same thing as what she is. This is what identity means.

Nothing about her body is even in the equation of 'is she really a Star Trek fan' at all.

What you are running into with your thinking, is all of the socially agreed upon traditions of what conditions you must fulfill in order to qualify as a man or a woman. Many people have found these conventions lacking and are in the process of trying to figure out something better (if not simpler).

I think you do get people who argue about whether somebody is really a fan of something. It's a conflict between equivocating objective and subjective definitions. Same here, multiple definitions of male and female. I don't see that there is necessarily a single uniquely correct definition.

 

[The Atheist]

I'd really like to know in which countries the law is as you state it is.

Along with New Zealand, which doesn't appear in the list despite not requiring surgical intervention, there are other countries noted here where surgery is not necessary.

Maybe "many" was wishful thinking, but there are several, and like the sweeping changes to marriage laws for homosexual relationships, I expect laws to continue being updated regarding gender status.

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."

You're kidding, right? No? Ok then.

One is bigotry, the other is a person's life.

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.

No idea. I think it does a disservice to all to have them lumped together. For instance the B. Big deal, some people choose to have sex with more than one gender.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I will own it. Having sex with a male repulses me. I don't have a rational explanation for why that is. I contend there are no rational explanations for sexual preference. I like what I like.

If you had said someone born male, I would not have replied but you are still insisting that they are male instead of female or some other category. Socially they should be taken as female and biologically they would fall into neither category fully.

 

[Cavemonster]

What makes me incredibly sad is that so much of this thread has been dedicated to the issue of what a trans person should reveal to potential partners.

The question has nothing to do with Leelah Alcorn's tragedy.

If this had been the first time I've seen this tangent, I might think "Oh, what an odd direction for this conversation to go" But having seen it again and again when trans issues come up, I have a hard time seeing it as a random occurrance.

I think a large part of transphobia originates when straight men start thinking of how awful they would feel if they accidental had sex with a trans woman. I think this ridiculous fear is so strong, that even though we're talking about a girl who is dead, the first thing some guys think about when the word "trans" is uttered is the horrible possibility of sticking their penis into a "man".

Regardless of what the actual ethics of disclosure, the fact that so many discussion get dragged to this weird topic just disturbs me. Yes yes, human beings are lving hellish, abused lives, but let's talk about what really matters apparently, the fear of a penis touching a man.

 

[Butter!]

No idea. I think it does a disservice to all to have them lumped together. For instance the B. Big deal, some people choose to have sex with more than one gender.

I've been a bit puzzled by all the lumping in that acronym too. It does seem like it could be a disservice in many ways to all the groups it represents. "Oh, they're all deviant weirdos, so they'd BETTER stand together." It could be interpreted that way, surely. Are there many active debates on this?

And now Asexual has been added too. (Well, not now-now, it was "officially" added several years ago. But still.) Isn't that a little flip?

But I guess it's not really my business since I do not belong to any of those groups. I consider myself an ally, certainly, but it's not my place to diss the acronym if the majority of those groups' members are okay with it. I'm just wondering, is all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The transgender supporter party line is that the gender of a person is determined solely by the person, regardless of any known physiological, chromosomal, or chemical characteristics of the person. If you self-identify as a woman, you are a woman. If you self-identify as a man, you are a man. Anyone who knows how you self-identify should respect that identification, and treat you as a person of that gender.


Here's where I think there is a logical problem with that.

It asserts that there are these categories, man and woman, that are significant and meaningful. If a person self-identifies as a man, it asserts that it is important to that person's happiness to be treated as a man. As altruistic people, followers of the golden rule, we are asked to treat them as they would wish to be treated, including treating them as the gender of their choice.

However, after exerting the existence of these categories, man and woman, it asserts that there is no objective measures by which one can determine whether or not a person is of one category or the other. It makes the categories incredibly important, asserting that it is necessary that we treat people as part of the appropriate category, and at the same time makes the categories meaningless, because they have no objective reality.

Other than reproduction what are the things that makes the exact medical details of a person so important?

This is basically the issue of gender vs sex. Sex is biological and there are a fair percentage of people who don't fit into neat catagories, see all the issues with certain female athletes undergoing medical exams to prove they are women, when they certainly are not transgendered.

So sex is biology and there are lots of people who fit into neither male or female, so this important objective reality how should they be treated?

 

[Butter!]

I think a large part of transphobia originates when straight men start thinking of how awful they would feel if they accidental had sex with a trans woman. I think this ridiculous fear is so strong, that even though we're talking about a girl who is dead, the first thing some guys think about when the word "trans" is uttered is the horrible possibility of sticking their penis into a "man".

Largely, this is probably true.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're taking the South Park line on this, which IMO is a misunderstanding of the situation and of gender.

Think of it more like, your daughter says she is a Star Trek fan. She might dress like one, might insist she is one, and you might play along and call her one. And there is no 'but'. It is just so. It's not that she wants to be a Star Trek fan. She is a Star Trek fan. How she feels simply is the same thing as what she is. This is what identity means.

Nothing about her body is even in the equation of 'is she really a Star Trek fan' at all.

What you are running into with your thinking, is all of the socially agreed upon traditions of what conditions you must fulfill in order to qualify as a man or a woman. Many people have found these conventions lacking and are in the process of trying to figure out something better (if not simpler).

Of course as a female she can not be a real geek and therefor not a true star trek fan. QED.

 

[shuttlt]

If you had said someone born male, I would not have replied but you are still insisting that they are male instead of female or some other category. Socially they should be taken as female and biologically they would fall into neither category fully.

i don't see the majority of people changing what they mean by the word any time soon. Cis-male is a an unknown term to most people. I can see why one might want to change the word, but it strikes me that this is a barrier to clear communication. Like all the arguments that hinge on one side using the common meaning of sexism while the other side uses the gender studies definition and pretends the other meaning does not exist. It's not an absolute reason not to change the meaning, but it's non trivial and will cause confusion.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

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.

My question was purely about the legal situation in various countries, and the only one I know a bit more about is my own. Not about whether or not I think those laws are sensible.

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"?

No, I don't think that at all. I also don't think anyone should be told some things they believe should be "kept to themselves", just because expressing them might offend others, but other publicly expressed beliefs should be exempt from negative reactions.

I also think you're overestimating the amount of conscious deciding that goes into many beliefs, and underestimating the difficulty in distinguishing between beliefs one supposedly wasn't born with, and beliefs one supposedly was (such as "I am a man/woman").