Transgender man gives birth

[Aepervius]

You started a thread to declare your principle unto the world that you would not call someone by a pronoun you don't think they merit.

And of course I don't think a fine is warranted, unless this particular behavior is part of an ongoing harrassment. Which would be a different situation, don't you think?

There are already laws on harassment on the book. Therefore such a specific law is unwarranted. In fact it is probably unconstitutional , as it is government imposing onto people a fine against their speech between 2 private entity , none of which is threatening libelous or slandering, so abridging their free speech.

 

[Aepervius]

Perhaps the concept of sexes is hazier than previously conceived. Maybe it's the definitions that should be reconsidered, rather than attempting to force reality to fit the definitions we should make the definitions more flexible to describe reality?

Just because Ug and Grug perceived exactly two distinct sexes a hundred thousand years ago doesn't mean we're stuck with that forever, does it?

Yes it does. You can make up *different* social construct and have 23442534653 genders if you wish, nobody forced to recognize such definition. But there is and will always be 2 sexes, baring evolution of a third over millions of years. The male and the female. There may be error during the development, like many X chromosome kilfner , testosterone resistance, hermaphroditic, but those are errors. Why is it important ? Because you define biology by the normal case, and not by the pathological errors. Thus as such there are only male and female among mammals. If you want something else, pray strongly for a miracle and become, say, a frog or certain species of fish which can change, or something unicellular which has neither. Until that miracle happens there are only male and female.

But You can define what You want as social gender constructs.
With no guarantee that the rest of the world agree on it.
So while I *may* out of politesse call that woman by "he" , she is a surgically changed female biologically.

 

[uke2se]

And just think, forty years from now your grandkids will be talking about how pedophobic you were.

Are you making the argument that if we accept that trans-women want to be called 'she', it's a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia?

Yes, you are making that argument. Aren't you ashamed?

 

[mumblethrax]

There are already laws on harassment on the book. Therefore such a specific law is unwarranted.

Yes. The relevant law is called "The New York City Human Rights Law", which was amended to protect gender identity in 2000-something, and that's the law that these guidelines are about. That is, the law we already have is the same law people are having a daily wail about.

In fact it is probably unconstitutional , as it is government imposing onto people a fine against their speech between 2 private entity , none of which is threatening libelous or slandering, so abridging their free speech.

Workplace harassment falls under the aegis of anti-discrimination law in the US. You might as well argue that you can't tell employers that they can't discriminate on the basis of race, because we have constitutionally protected freedom of association.

If every conversation you have with one of your employees goes something like "Hey, Jew. How's it going, Jew? Did you finish those TPS reports, Jew?" you're going to lose the resultant lawsuit if you can't manage a better defense than "free speech!", even though it's perfectly legal to treat people that shoddily outside of an employment relationship.

 

[Belz...]

Sex. The word you're thinking of is sex.

No, I know what I said.

A transwoman is a woman.

Not until the transition, they aren't. The difference between our positions should be obvious: you just ask them what they feel like; I rely on more objective measures.

Again, you don't understand the measures. Yes, what a person feels like is in fact, part of it. It isn't the whole of it, but it is part of it.

So if it's just part of it, why is that the only criterion you're using?

Yeah, it's perfectly polite to tell someone they're the wrong gender or they're going to hell.

Again, someone is making up my own position. That sounds like fun, given how often it's been done here.

 

[Belz...]

Not confronting people needlessly about their gender issues is an ideology?

And AGAIN asking me to defend a position I did not take. Is this a game?

Minding your own business about things that don't concern you--that's an ideology?

Don't play games with trans issues, please. You're doing a disservice to them by a) treating them like children and b) refusing to discuss the issue dispassionately.

You really think you have to use the words "sir" or "ma'am" in every conversation with another human being?

Another thing I have not said or implied. You're going for a home run, there.

If you've never encountered a single transgendered person in your entire life, why are you so adamant on insisting that if and when you do you'll call them the gender they don't identify as?

Because unless they tell me I have no way to know, most probably. The only issue would be pre-transition ones, and I suspect that most of them wouldn't care quite as much as the white knights who keep ranting about them online.

 

[Belz...]

What is the objective reality of a gendered pronoun?

What is the objective reality of "kilogram"? As you well know, it's not the name of the measure, but the measure itself.

I didn't claim it was. Nor does it need to be for my analogy to be valid.

The similarity lies in the motivation of people who cry foul over something so insignificant.

If it's insignificant then both sides are guilty.

Perhaps the concept of sexes is hazier than previously conceived.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you're wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Are you making the argument that if we accept that trans-women want to be called 'she', it's a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia?

Yes, you are making that argument. Aren't you ashamed?

No, I think rather he's saying that society is moving towards being accepting of just about anything. Not that I agree. I don't think pedophilia is likely to become accepted in the forseable future.

 

[uke2se]

No, I think rather he's saying that society is moving towards being accepting of just about anything. Not that I agree. I don't think pedophilia is likely to become accepted in the forseable future.

That's the slipperly slope argument I was referring to.

 

[Belz...]

That's the slipperly slope argument I was referring to.

Yeah but he's not saying (I think) that if we accept X we eventually accept Y. He's saying that accepting X is part of a larger movement that may also lead to accepting Y. Does that make sense?

 

[uke2se]

Yeah but he's not saying (I think) that if we accept X we eventually accept Y. He's saying that accepting X is part of a larger movement that may also lead to accepting Y. Does that make sense?

I don't think there's any discernable difference.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think there's any discernable difference.

Well there's no causality link, for one. I think that's a rather important difference.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A $125,000 fine for calling a transgender male co-worker a "she", will certainly deserve a hearing at the Supreme Court. One has the right to their own beliefs regarding this VERY complicated matter.

It is unreasonable to fine someone $125,000 for calling a transgender male "madam".

I mean, come on folks. Let's get real.

And the outrage of calling a a kike a kike is crazy too.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, that's steep price to pay for something so trivial. You'd think you stole their Aston Martin or something.

Like all forms of harassment it can not be a big deal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Calling someone a faggot is not the same as calling someone "sir".

I understand this issue is of significant emotional importance to you, but you cannot order me under penalty of $125,000 to call a woman "sir".

And the law doesn't actually do that. It punishes harassment campaigns based on their gender. Kind of like making a pass at a coworker is fine, but repeated unwanted passes opens you up to large civil penalties. Clearly you are against sexual harassment being punishable too, because you get millions for simply making a pass at someone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Constitution protects Freedom of Speech.

It does not protect persons from feeling offended.

And yet they destroyed Bill O'reilly for his free speech, just for wanting to rub falafel on his female employee in the shower. Outrageous that free speech like that would get him millions in punishment. Down right unconstitutional.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I understand this is what you currently think.

But I disagree.

I think gender is hardwired into our DNA, biology and phenotype. We dont yet have the technology to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man.

So it is your religion then.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It's absolutely nothing like it at all. "Him" is not a derogatory word.

It is to someone who has spent years or even decades not wanting to be a 'him'.
It's about context. Just like there's a difference between accidentally using the wrong pronoun, and insisting that you call someone a man or woman because you assert your knowledge of biology trumps theirs.
There are neurological and hormonal factors that cause transgenderism. Those are just as biological as chromosomes and dangly bits. Just because biology doesn't always play by the rules we think we've discovered doesn't make it less biological.
I'd say that the fact transgender people exist, and cannot change their gender identity is just as objective and/or arbitrary as judging chromosomes or 'looking' male or female.

Not until the transition, they aren't. The difference between our positions should be obvious: you just ask them what they feel like; I rely on more objective measures.

But you were talking about biological truth. And this is not some kind of rhetorical trick, I'm genuinely interested... Why does this transition matter to you? It seems a little arbitrary to me to on the one hand define genders by the biological definitions of chromosomes, birth sex, and so on, and at the same time accept that hormonal and surgical alterations can change it 'enough' to warrant a different pronoun.

Especially in everyday situations, which is where these questions about how to address someone arise.
I don't think I could reliably judge by looking at someone whether they are an unusual looking 'regular' man or woman, trans, pre- or post-op, what kinds of surgeries they have had or are planning on having, if they're on hormones, and whether or not that meets certain criteria. And I am not going to ask them about any of that in order to decide which pronoun I'm going to use.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As far as pronouns are concerned I have come up with a fair compromise.

Always call a transgender person by their NAME, if this is an issue for you.

Jake is always Jake. Not sir, he, him, etc. Always Jake.

Susan is always Susan. Not her, madam, ma'am, she, etc. Always Susan.

And if Jake changes his name to Tom, he is still always Jake, just like he can never be Jacob. That is why you would never refer to someone by a married name. Names are fundamental immutable facts.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What is a covered entity?

As far as the law is concerned, it seems to be rather "nannyish". I don't need that kind of protect, I think.

Ranb

Like those BS laws against sexual harassment. It is outrageous how much fox news has been punished for the free speech rights of their workers.