Transgender man gives birth

[Minoosh]

Someone please explain to me why I should be required to call this person a "man", even though "he" has become pregnant and gave birth to a child.

You're not required to.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by everyone.
ETA2: I'm not sure you should be required to. It's simply the law in some states under certain conditions, duly passed and so on. Why should I not smoke marijuana? Because it's not legal where I live. (In my case some other good reasons).

I am WAY behind on this thread. It moved fast. I'll stop posting now.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How is that relevant to the question of whether we play along with their claim?

I am trying to figure out what playing along with their claim actually means. You are going to use what ever pronoun you feel is appropriate for people, so what is the act that you are doing or ignoring their wishes with transracial people?

 

[Belz...]

As I already said in the post you quoted, the main difference is that I know what a woman is in context

This is the third time I ask you to give me your criteria for making this determination. You've said that the person's identification is not the only criterion, but you have avoided giving me a full list of them. Are you going to do this now?

and your BS argument doesn't. It in fact denies such a context by assertion.

What are you talking about? We're simply using different criteria.

That's why you are not arguing in good faith.

That comes back to exactly what I said: I'm not arguing in good faith because it's impossible to do so and not reach the same conclusion as you.

The conclusions of my argument have the benefit of being true though.

Argument from decree. Very bold.

If you think my argument is BS because it echoed your form, then the mirror argument served well to show your argument by your own standards is BS.

That doesn't follow at all. If I say you're ugly, and you respond that I'm ugly too, saying that your response is BS because you just threw back mine at me doesn't mean you're not ugly.

 

[Belz...]

I am trying to figure out what playing along with their claim actually means.

That's odd. We've been discussing that for the entire thread. Where did I lose you?

- I'm a woman
- If you say so, then you are!

- I'm an orchid!
- If you say so, then you are!

etc.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes. Intentional OR repeated. So it's against the law to not cater to people's beliefs about their gender.

No, it's against the law to harass them about it. There's no verbiage in the statute that requires you to cater to them.

Because there is, of course, no middle ground.

Why does there need to be? Say "Good morning, Roberta", get your coffee, and go about your business.

And how is it bigoted or dehumanising? How are you defining those terms?

Any old dictionary will do.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The issue goes beyond politeness and social roles. I have no problem being polite and calling people what they prefer to be called.

But what we are talking about in the present case is a person who was born female-sexed but actually is male-gnedered. Thats what a Transman is, yes? The underlying idea is that this person is well and truly a male and we in society should respect his dignity as a male. But then, this man goes and has a baby. How are we supposed to reconcile this? Are we supposed to suddenly think: "Well of course, some men can have babies, NBD."

Sure why not?

This idea goes against everything we understand about biology and gender. The current generation of humans is going to have a really hard time actually considering someone to be a man if that man has given birth.

And again biology is not clear cut. If you want to be clear cut then you have to stop thinking of people who have had hysterectomies as women. And of course people with vasectomies are not men either. As for gender, as a social construct that changes all the time. The modern ideas of what it means to be a man vs a woman is radically different than it was 50 years ago. For example no women are even allowed to sign things for themselves.

For me, personally, if I knew and interacted with such a person, I'd remain polite. But I can't help but think that such a situation undermines the fight for acceptance of trans people in larger society. It just furthers the notion that trans people are actually suffering from a mental illness. Maybe a few generations down, men having babies will be NBD, but in current society it's going to be an issue.

Like having a woman for a boss. You grab her ass once and now suddenly it is some big deal.

 

[Belz...]

No, it's against the law to harass them about it.

Then why word it that way, "intentional OR repeated"?

Why does there need to be?

Need? What? Do you seriously think that there are only two options there? Harass this person or pretend that what they think is true regardless of whether it is?

Any old dictionary will do.

You're using a non-standard definition. If you send me to the dictionary, I'll just tell you that your use of these words is just nonsense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is a mental disorder. But there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people suffer from such disorders. Hell, as far as I know, I probably suffer from OCD myself. I know a few people with anxiety problems. We do support people with such disorders in various ways such as medication or, in the case of trans people and should they want to, transition.

But the risk in public opinion you allude to is not that they have a mental disorder, but that the entire idea of transgenderism is a hoax. Such a thing would be far more damaging to trans people than pronouns.

The thing is they don't have a disorder, or rather they have one that is cured by transitioning. But of course that isn't acceptable and you need to fight and exacerbate all mental disorders as much as possible. So they know their place.

 

[Belz...]

And again biology is not clear cut. If you want to be clear cut then you have to stop thinking of people who have had hysterectomies as women

What are you on about? Why would you stop thinking of these women as women?

Are you contending that the presence of genitals at moment X is what determines whether someone's a man or a woman? Again, I've addressed it earlier today but "oddly" it went ignored: someone who loses an arm doesn't cease being human just because humans have two arms.

 

[sylvan8798]

Of course when one points out a general rule that applies to 99.7% of the population, some wise guy will point out that it isn't 100%, as if it matters to what the first person said.

We aren't talking about 99.7% of the population, are we? Does your general rule apply to 99.7% of the trans population? That you can tell the males from the females on sight?

I've addressed exactly this sort of argument earlier. It's objective reality that people are afraid of elevators, but that does not mean that elevators being dangerous is objective reality. I suspect that you understood the distinction quite well before you posted that.

If Joe has decided to present himself to the world as afraid of elevators, how does you challenging that make the world a better place? Maybe Joe is fine with taking the stairs. I'm just not getting what it is that you would want to achieve by, for example, calling our transwoman student "he". What is the net gain in the world?

 

[Belz...]

It is a mental disorder. But there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people suffer from such disorders. Hell, as far as I know, I probably suffer from OCD myself. I know a few people with anxiety problems. We do support people with such disorders in various ways such as medication or, in the case of trans people and should they want to, transition.

The thing is they don't have a disorder, or rather they have one that is cured by transitioning. But of course that isn't acceptable and you need to fight and exacerbate all mental disorders as much as possible. So they know their place.

If anyone had any doubts as to your rank dishonesty, I can't think of a better proof than the above.

How you can respond to a reasoned post, where I make very clear that the disorder is nothing to be ashamed of and that those with it need our support, and pretend that I said the exact opposite is some of the most hateful things I've seen someone write on this forum.

That you would expend so much energy to libel other posters just to pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority is nothing short of disgusting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then why word it that way, "intentional OR repeated"?

Because that is standard verbiage of harassment laws.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What are you on about? Why would you stop thinking of these women as women?

They can't get pregnant. That makes them not biologically women anymore. Simple really.

Are you contending that the presence of genitals at moment X is what determines whether someone's a man or a woman? Again, I've addressed it earlier today but "oddly" it went ignored: someone who loses an arm doesn't cease being human just because humans have two arms.

No I am saying that if you want to really go into biology their ability to fulfill the reproductive role of male or female at a given moment is what defines it. Women stop being biologically female at menopause as well.

Simple and direct definition. Utterly useless socially but perfect in terms of biology, and that is what is really important right?

 

[Belz...]

We aren't talking about 99.7% of the population, are we? Does your general rule apply to 99.7% of the trans population? That you can tell the males from the females on sight?

I think you lost track of the conversation. Yes, we're talking about 99.7% of the population when someone tells me there's no way to know if someone's a man or a woman just by looking at them. That there is a tiny percentage of the population for which this is a problematic proposition doesn't change the fact that the claim that I can't do this is wrong.

If Joe has decided to present himself to the world as afraid of elevators, how does you challenging that make the world a better place?

You're right of course. That's why nothing was ever gained by challenging the deeply-held belief that the earth was the center of the universe, or that mental illness was due to demonic possession. No, of course telling people that their beliefs are wrong has only brought us pain and misery.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If anyone had any doubts as to your rank dishonesty, I can't think of a better proof than the above.

How you can respond to a reasoned post, where I make very clear that the disorder is nothing to be ashamed of and that those with it need our support, and pretend that I said the exact opposite is some of the most hateful things I've seen someone write on this forum.

That you would expend so much energy to libel other posters just to pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority is nothing short of disgusting.

You are against the effective cure for gender dysphoria, why pick on just that one mental problem?

 

[Belz...]

You are against the effective cure for gender dysphoria, why pick on just that one mental problem?

You CAN read the highlighted part, right? You CAN see that I've argued for the exact opposite of what you say I argued for, right? You know that means you're lying, right?

Well, if you can't, other posters can for sure.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think a pretty good trans-inclusive definition of "woman" would go something like "an adult, human female, or someone who exhibits the gender attributes (especially gender identity) traditionally associated with adult, human females". That's non-circular and does not evacuate the word of all meaning.

It does not exclude transmen.


That's not the only problem with the definition, but that's enough to demonstrated that it doesn't meet the criteria I posted.

Reminder:
1. includes transwomen
2. excludes transmen
3. is not circular

 

[applecorped]

If anyone had any doubts as to your rank dishonesty, I can't think of a better proof than the above.

How you can respond to a reasoned post, where I make very clear that the disorder is nothing to be ashamed of and that those with it need our support, and pretend that I said the exact opposite is some of the most hateful things I've seen someone write on this forum.

That you would expend so much energy to libel other posters just to pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority is nothing short of disgusting.

This

 

[ponderingturtle]

You CAN read the highlighted part, right? You CAN see that I've argued for the exact opposite of what you say I argued for, right? You know that means you're lying, right?

Well, if you can't, other posters can for sure.

You have been clear that for this you will focus on some biological fact instead of what will actually help them. But you repeatedly ignore all the complexity of biological sex too.

How about this, what is an acceptable fine for refusing to rent apartments to transgender people? Does it change if you are renting out the top floor of your home vs being a slum lord?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It does not exclude transmen.


That's not the only problem with the definition, but that's enough to demonstrated that it doesn't meet the criteria I posted.

Reminder:
1. includes transwomen
2. excludes transmen
3. is not circular

It does meet that, it just does not list the various traits that one signals gender with in our society.