Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

[Pup]

If "_____" isn't wrong why do they have to be ethical? Because being ethical is what it is about. So there is no obligation on non pedophiles not to abuse people? So a teacher who has sex with a sexually mature teen is OK because as a non pedophile they are exempt from the requirement for ethical behavior and their abuse of children is OK?

I don't see why this is so complicated. It seems straightforward to me.

Any behavior that takes advantage of a vulnerable person is unethical, whether it's an adult male having sex with a child, or a teacher having sex with even an over-18 student because of the power imbalance, or similar behavior.

Just having an urge to do such a thing, or thinking about it, isn't unethical, because no harm has occurred.

Someone might choose not to be a scout master or teacher if they knew it would put them in too much temptation, like the good example someone gave of an alcoholic taking a job as a bartender. But until they act on their urge, they haven't done anything wrong, even if they're tempted, because no actual harm has occurred.

 

[Belz...]

Huh... I might've misunderstood turtle's question and mixed it up with another point.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think it would go a long way toward acceptance within mainstream society, including the parents of a transgender teen. If medical science can point to a specific reason why a person would identify themselves as a gender that didn't match their visible anatomy, people would be less likely to say that they are wrong.

I think it's important to establish that there is a physical reason for a male saying he "feels female;" if it is indeed true. I would think it would be easier as a parent to accept this phenomenon if there is a biological underpinning for this, that there is a tangible reason for someone feeling this way. That it's not just a feeling that becomes an obsession. That it's not sexual perversion or a form of emotional/mental illness (which is what I think a lot of people believe). It is a physiological condition that individuals have little control over.

The reason why I think it's relevant to this thread -- at least as relevant as whether or not someone can cite a gay man becoming enraged at finding the man he is sleeping with used to be a female ( ) -- is that if Leelah Alcorn's parents understood these issues Leelah Alcorn might still be with us.

 

[shuttlt]

The reason why I think it's relevant to this thread -- at least as relevant as whether or not someone can cite a gay man becoming enraged at finding the man he is sleeping with used to be a female ( ) -- is that if Leelah Alcorn's parents understood these issues Leelah Alcorn might still be with us.

Surely the same fundamentalists who don't accept evolution won't be changing their views because you can test for trans?

Honestly, there are many things about myself that have no physical basis in the sense that you are talking about here, but I would really struggle to change. It also strikes me that if such physical marker can not be found, or it can only be found in some transsexuals, but not others, one is setting up avoidable problems by saying that this is important. Any such test will surely have failure cases in both directions, if it says I'm trans, but I don't think so, am I wrong? If it says I'm not trans, but I think I am, am I wrong?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't see why this is so complicated. It seems straightforward to me.

Any behavior that takes advantage of a vulnerable person is unethical, whether it's an adult male having sex with a child, or a teacher having sex with even an over-18 student because of the power imbalance, or similar behavior.

Just having an urge to do such a thing, or thinking about it, isn't unethical, because no harm has occurred.

Someone might choose not to be a scout master or teacher if they knew it would put them in too much temptation, like the good example someone gave of an alcoholic taking a job as a bartender. But until they act on their urge, they haven't done anything wrong, even if they're tempted, because no actual harm has occurred.

This is actually the stated position of some churches (and some posters here) about many issues..."It's OK to be homosexual, just don't do any homosexual things."

...can't hang a man for thinking.

 

[bruto]

I don't see why this is so complicated. It seems straightforward to me.

Any behavior that takes advantage of a vulnerable person is unethical, whether it's an adult male having sex with a child, or a teacher having sex with even an over-18 student because of the power imbalance, or similar behavior.

Just having an urge to do such a thing, or thinking about it, isn't unethical, because no harm has occurred.

Someone might choose not to be a scout master or teacher if they knew it would put them in too much temptation, like the good example someone gave of an alcoholic taking a job as a bartender. But until they act on their urge, they haven't done anything wrong, even if they're tempted, because no actual harm has occurred.

I think that as often is the case, the overlaps and vagueness of language make arguments hard, especially in a thread like this, in which it seems people are excessively eager to find fault even in posts they almost completely agree on. Clearly to be a silent and non practicing pedophile is not unethical, because the whole point of even speaking of ethics depends on the idea that we are in charge of what we do. But there is still the inclination to do something wrong, and as such, if it deviates greatly from the norm, it could be itself identified with some label denoting its wrongness, though one might best describe it as unfortunate. Christian morality often conflates what we are or what we think with what we do, and often enough the two overlap, but they're not the same thing. The problem comes, in part, I think, from the use of the same word to denote the impulse and the practice. Nobody would be likely to suggest that my suppressed urge to whack some person I hate makes me an "ethical murderer," because here the language has made it clear that the crime is what we do, not what we are.

 

[Butter!]

I don't see why this is so complicated. It seems straightforward to me.

Any behavior that takes advantage of a vulnerable person is unethical, whether it's an adult male having sex with a child, or a teacher having sex with even an over-18 student because of the power imbalance, or similar behavior.

Just having an urge to do such a thing, or thinking about it, isn't unethical, because no harm has occurred.

Someone might choose not to be a scout master or teacher if they knew it would put them in too much temptation, like the good example someone gave of an alcoholic taking a job as a bartender. But until they act on their urge, they haven't done anything wrong, even if they're tempted, because no actual harm has occurred.

This.

 

[Butter!]

I think that as often is the case, the overlaps and vagueness of language make arguments hard, especially in a thread like this, in which it seems people are excessively eager to find fault even in posts they almost completely agree on. Clearly to be a silent and non practicing pedophile is not unethical, because the whole point of even speaking of ethics depends on the idea that we are in charge of what we do. But there is still the inclination to do something wrong, and as such, if it deviates greatly from the norm, it could be itself identified with some label denoting its wrongness, though one might best describe it as unfortunate. Christian morality often conflates what we are or what we think with what we do, and often enough the two overlap, but they're not the same thing. The problem comes, in part, I think, from the use of the same word to denote the impulse and the practice. Nobody would be likely to suggest that my suppressed urge to whack some person I hate makes me an "ethical murderer," because here the language has made it clear that the crime is what we do, not what we are.

Oooh, this too!

ETA - Yeah, basically we are arguing semantics. I think the terminology is causing a problem too. Just the phrase "ethical pedophile" gets people's hackles up, but it's important to remember, the term "pedophile" just means someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. It doesn't mean they must have acted on these urges.

I think the media makes it worse by throwing around terms like "convicted pedophile" when they mean convicted child abuser or something similar. Legally, there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile," but it's out there in the popular lexicon regardless. And it can only muddy discussions like this.

Maybe we need more terms.

 

[Primus]

I am not saying it isn't a good thing to do, I am trying to understand exactly where the line is for these people between Real Woman and Pseudo Woman. It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with their current body at all, but if they at one time had a penis.

You know exactly where the line is because you've been told many times. I'm geniunely curious as to what your agenda is in continuing to push this? As I've said I think it's counter productive and unhelpful, everyone else has dropped it but you're still banging this drum.

 

[luchog]

Surely the same fundamentalists who don't accept evolution won't be changing their views because you can test for trans?

Unfortunately, you're very likely right on that. We've known about the biological basis for homosexuality for quite some time now; yet the religious types are still insisting it's a choice that can be "cured'.

 

[Donn]

"Gender apartheid"?

I'm not sure, but I might be for it. I'm certain that I am for separation of male and female locker rooms, which is what I was talking about, and I guess that's one form of "apartheid".

And if you really wanted to just have one set of locker rooms for all, I wouldn't mind, and neither would most men. But, that's the thing. Most men wouldn't mind. Most women wouldn't like it. It's almost as if men and women were somehow.....different....even beyond the shape and function of their sexual organs.

The "locker room" scenario is a red herring flopping down a slippery slope. I maintain that after a while, people will adapt to a wide rainbow of genders. New protocols will be invented every step of the way; small steps to new cultures.

My basic point is simply that we, each, should think before using our power to curb gender.

When we speak, decide, opine, petition, comment, post, vote and so on, we should take the road that leads to the greatest diversity ahead; because, let's face it, the other roads have long been trod, ever more narrow, until all are marching in step to the monotone beat of intolerance.

 

[Donn]

.. that they find out a partner they had sex with is really trans. They clearly went into that being attracted to the person, but that all changes by learning that they used to have a penis. That is what I don't get.

It seems obvious to me: your attraction is in your own mind. The other person is not in your own mind. When the two don't agree in crucial moments, there is shock.
Feelings of being tricked, of being lied-to are natural as an outcome, although wrongly directed at the other person. You have tricked yourself.

 

[Donn]

I think it's important to establish that there is a physical reason for a male saying he "feels female;" if it is indeed true. I would think it would be easier as a parent to accept this phenomenon if there is a biological underpinning for this, that there is a tangible reason for someone feeling this way.

Has science changed how people feel about race? I don't know. I don't think it's a factor. I think the actual presence of actual people working to change views, to raise consciousness, is doing the job.

I think these concerned parents will shift into tolerant parents, will shift into "what the heck was the big deal?" parents.

It will be cultural osmosis that does the most.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think it's important to establish that there is a physical reason for a male saying he "feels female;" if it is indeed true. I would think it would be easier as a parent to accept this phenomenon if there is a biological underpinning for this, that there is a tangible reason for someone feeling this way.

Gay people are accepted to a much greater degree today than they have been in even the recent past.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Link

Anything that advances the idea that transgender people are responding to feelings that have an organic trigger will help greatly in increasing societal acceptance. The idea that transgender people are wrestling with feelings they cannot control. I think most people -- like me in fact -- upon learning this have a much greater empathy with transgender people. There will always be some people who just will not be able to accept it. Just as there will probably also be some people who cannot accept gay people. But there will be fewer and fewer over time until they finally become so few as to be largely insignificant.

Of course then there is the whole idea that a man who takes hormones, even one who has surgery to remove the male genitals and replace them with what appears to be a vagina, is still not a woman. They're something else, some new and unique category. Being a woman, or becoming a woman, is more than taking hormones and having surgery.

That's a whole other issue however. But I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

 

[shuttlt]

There will always be some people who just will not be able to accept it. Just as there will probably also be some people who cannot accept gay people. But there will be fewer and fewer over time until they finally become so few as to be largely insignificant.

I have no particular confidence in such a future. Personally, I think people are too good at exploiting arbitrary differences between one another for any sort of confidence in a continuous upward progression towards enlightenment. Maybe it'll happen, but I have my doubts.

Maybe in the future it won't be trans people so much, but I find it hard to believe that it wont be someone feeling marginalized and abused. Why there should necessarily be less, I don't know. Right now the internet seems to be great for letting people be mean and unpleasant to far more people, more easily than they could ever have done before. Is trans sufficiently common that people will get exposed enough to it for it to be a normal part of day to day life? It's certainly always going to be unusual.

 

[Donn]

Anything that advances the idea that transgender people are responding to feelings that have an organic trigger will help greatly in increasing societal acceptance.

I understand the need for other sources of information, for details and confirmation, but what will you do until such data is available? Will you withhold acceptance of trans people?

If you accept them on their word, while awaiting this data, then you do not need the data. If you (global "you") reject them then you'll be no better after the data.

The idea that transgender people are wrestling with feelings they cannot control.

Of course they are. Is the "faking it" hypothesis valid? What is a feeling if not an "organic trigger?"

.. whole idea that a man who takes hormones, even one who has surgery to remove the male genitals and replace them with what appears to be a vagina, is still not a woman. They're something else, some new and unique category. Being a woman, or becoming a woman, is more than taking hormones and having surgery.

I think new words are required to cater for a permutation of sex/gender. I don't know how that would work.

For example, that "man" who is aiming to be a "woman" really does end up in "her" own gender/sex node somewhere that is certainly different to nearby bodies with different sex stats - even if the gender stats are very close.

 

[Aepervius]

You have tricked yourself.

On that one I disagree. If you *expect* a naturally born woman, and find out the other is MtF, then you did not trick yourself.

The fact that the *potential* disclosure come from the other party clearly show you are not tricking yourself.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> Maybe in the future it won't be trans people so much, but I find it hard to believe that it wont be someone feeling marginalized and abused.

I agree, there will always be a "them." At least for the foreseeable future. Only what does that have to do specifically with Leelah Alcorn and transgendered people?

 

[Butter!]

I agree, there will always be a "them." At least for the foreseeable future. Only what does that have to do specifically with Leelah Alcorn and transgendered people?

Whaaaaat. It followed directly from the discussion of the "othering" which is a part of the environment that seems to have set Leelah's sights on suicide. You fostered some of said discussion by presenting an angle of possible scientific theorizing. Observing the larger cultural attitudes outside the specific group in question seems like quite a natural thing to me.

Unless I've misunderstood something key. Which is quite possible. I got like an hour of sleep last night (my puppy wasn't feeling very sleepy!) and may not be firing on all cylinders.

 

[Arcade22]

That does not mean that UK or Canadian culture are any more accepting of transgender/transexual individuals than US culture. My experience, and that of many of my acquaintances, is that they are just as far from accepting such people as the US is; and the far-left is often just as homophobic/transphobic as the far-right.

Fun fact: After Stalin homo/bisexuality generally became opposed by the communists that supported the Soviet Union, especially among those who openly supported Stalinism. Hence why most post soviet states and those who modeled their laws and government on it had laws against sodomy until just after the fall of the soviet union.

This was based on non-religious homophobic bigotry and prejudice that was common throughout the world at the time, such as:

• Homosexuality was a disease and/or abnormal so society had to prevent it from becoming more prevalent and openly practiced as not to threaten society.
  
• Homo/bisexuals were a danger towards youth because they might "convert" them into becoming homo/bisexuals themselves rather than growing up to becoming normal healthy heterosexuals. A common trope is about them "tricking" an innocent and naive teenage boy into sexual depravity.
  
• Being attracted towards other guys and especially wanting to be the "bottom" is a very feminine and non-manly trait and it's unacceptable because men should be manly.