Transgender man gives birth

[Meadmaker]

This doesn't match up with the 'I don't want people looking at me' or 'the 'won't somebody think of the children' arguments. The (bizarrely ascribed, are we sure it's actually an issue?) problem some have is that they believe that people with a sexual interest in their junk are going to look. The person you describe above is definitely going to manage to get an eyeful of what they're after at some point. Not, I must add again, that I think there's really any validity in the 'oh my god, what if they see me naked' argument.

(emphasis added)

The highlighted is a creation. It's not really why people are concerned.

I'm not sure that there is even a "why", that is anything other than a rationalization. Regardless of "why", that's the way things are. CosCos expressed it pretty well.

 

[Meadmaker]

That would indicate that you believe that the operation itself makes a woman into a man or a man into a woman.

No. It would indicate what I think ought to be done as a matter of policy regarding a complex situation, the philosophical ramifications of which are too complicated to be resolved in a simple, one sentence summary.

But the policy statement is pretty easy.

 

[uke2se]

(emphasis added)

The highlighted is a creation. It's not really why people are concerned.

I'm not sure that there is even a "why", that is anything other than a rationalization. Regardless of "why", that's the way things are. CosCos expressed it pretty well.

Not really. He expressed an irrational fear stemming from his own body image. He then asserted that billions of other people feel the same without providing any evidence for said assertion.

 

[uke2se]

No. It would indicate what I think ought to be done as a matter of policy regarding a complex situation, the philosophical ramifications of which are too complicated to be resolved in a simple, one sentence summary.

But the policy statement is pretty easy.

But isn't the question of when a man is a man and a woman a woman what we're talking about here? This feels more like an offer in a negotiation rather than an argument.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I think we can reduce the answer to this, in the end: the fear that counter-factual beliefs could affect legislation.

A legitimate fear, even though it might be a slippery slope fallacy

The thing is, transgender people exist. And as far as we know now, the only way to decrease the comparatively huge risk of depression and suicide in this group is to allow them to transition to their target gender.

Will making transgender lives easier lead to advocacy for people who think they're unicorns, transracial, and robots? Yeah, probably. And when they can show that society not acknowledging their condition and not offering them rainbows and motor oil is as damaging as it is for transgenders not to be able to transition, they might have a case to make...
Of course, scientific research would be needed, and I doubt science will ever find a robust biological base for 'species identity', which does at least seem to exist for gender identity (though more research may be warranted).
ETA: if they do find evidence that people can legitimately identify as wolves, I probably won't like it, and I might scoff, but I'll adapt eventually.

Few people think that. There are some who actually think biological sex is a social construct.

Sure, there are always extremists and nutjobs, and throngs of idiots who will say anything just to signal their virtuousness to their own ingroup.
But using them as the baseline is as productive as dragging nazis and stalinists into every discussion about politics.

 

[sphenisc]

... If you're talking to about someone, you're going to have to call them something sooner or later. And the way English works, that's probably going to involve a gendered pronoun.

FTFY

 

[Belz...]

No it isn't. Perhaps if you read the thread you would understand?

I have and you're being inconsistent. Is it or isn't it?

Please provide evidence for your own assertions.

It's odd that you're not aware of claims made by sone on your own side of the issue, and that have been under discussion for a couple of years now. Google it. It's not the topic of the discussion.

I must have missed it. Linky to post?

How about you follow my advice and read back uphtread rather than constantly asking me to repeat myself?

Do you scan the genitals of all people in the locker room?

I'm not a computer. I can't censor the bit I don't want to see.

Counter factual beliefs like what?

And round and round we go. You repeatedly claim to not understand the essentials of the discussion, asking us again and again to post the same stuff. I already told you what the discussion was about, to which you replied, and then I said that it had been posted several times already, something which apparently stung because you threw those words back at me in the first quote of this post. So why do you ask the question again? Do you expect me not to tell you the same thing or ask you again to look upthread? How often are you going to play this game?

 

[uke2se]

I have and you're being inconsistent. Is it or isn't it?

I just told you.

It's odd that you're not aware of claims made by sone on your own side of the issue. Google it. It's not the topic of the discussion.

No, I won't google it. You've been here for long enough to know how it works.

How about you follow my advice and read back uphtread rather than constantly asking me to repeat myself?

Like I said, I must have missed it. Can you provide a link?

I'm not a computer. I can't censor the bit I don't want to see.

Might I suggest you simply mind your business?

And round and round we go. You repeatedly claim to not understand the essentials of the discussion, asking us again and again to post the same stuff. I already told you what the discussion was about, to which you replied, and then I said that it had been posted several times already, something which apparently stung because you threw those words back at me in the first quote of this post. So why do you ask the question again? Do you expect me not to tell you the same thing or ask you again to look upthread? How often are you going to play this game?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I asked a completely different question, one that I haven't asked before in this thread. I'll repeat it for you:

Counterfactual beliefs like what?

ETA: You do understand that policy isn't being created based on someone feeling like a man when born a woman, correct?

 

[CosCos]

Not really. He expressed an irrational fear stemming from his own body image. He then asserted that billions of other people feel the same without providing any evidence for said assertion.

You want evidence that people are embarrassed to walk around naked? Ok, clothes. That's your evidence.

But I understand that this aberration of mine is some irrational thing that I just need to get over. But a man believing he is a woman and vice versa, well that's just normal as can be and I need to get over myself and accept that otherwise I'm a bigot.

Sure.

 

[Belz...]

A legitimate fear, even though it might be a slippery slope fallacy

It is indeed very difficult to disassociate the two. A fear or concern is usually about things getting worse.

But legislation IS often made on the back of counter-factual claims. Look no further than global warming or immigration.

The thing is, transgender people exist. And as far as we know now, the only way to decrease the comparatively huge risk of depression and suicide in this group is to allow them to transition to their target gender.

I fully agree. The issue is not that. It's about whether trans-X is X. Pre-transition, does believing you're a man make you a man? Post-transition, are you now fully a man? How do we make it work in this-and-that context? Etc. My issue is that although transition is a good way to make trans people live fuller and happier lives (contrary to ponderingturtle's vile accusations) I don't agree that the transition changes the biological sex, and obviously it's even less the case pre-transition. So the question of how to deal with the situation in various contexts arises since there are actual, biological and physical differences between the two sexes.

Will making transgender lives easier lead to advocacy for people who think they're unicorns, transracial, and robots? Yeah, probably. And when they can show that society not acknowledging their condition and not offering them rainbows and motor oil is as damaging as it is for transgenders not to be able to transition, they might have a case to make...

It is damaging in the same sense, as far as they're concerned: you are denying that their beliefs are true, which I've been told numerous times in this thread amounts to dehumanising them and championing discrimination and harassment against them, or worse.

ETA: if they do find evidence that people can legitimately identify as wolves, I probably won't like it, and I might scoff, but I'll adapt eventually.

Which is, pardon me, insane. A human is not a wolf and cannot be a wolf. They can believe it, but that makes it a mental disorder.

 

[uke2se]

You want evidence that people are embarrassed to walk around naked? Ok, clothes. That's your evidence.

No, I don't particularly need evidence for that. Was that your only assertion? If so, why make it here? You should create a thread demanding individual locker rooms for everyone.

But I understand that this aberration of mine is some irrational thing that I just need to get over.

It's most likely quite normal, but yes, you need to get over it.

But a man believing he is a woman and vice versa, well that's just normal as can be and I need to get over myself and accept that otherwise I'm a bigot.

Yes, you are. Science has shown that gender identity isn't necessarily the same as biological gender. If you can't accept that, you're a science denier. If you want to punish those who have gender dysphoria, you're a bigot.

 

[Belz...]

I just told you.

What is, then?

No, I won't google it.

Start with biological sex being a social construct. That's a perfect example of how the left-wing ideologues claim that your belief determines reality.

Might I suggest you simply mind your business?

What in the blue **** are you babbling about? They're nude, right in my immediate surrounding. At some point you're going to see some bits. Apparently my eyes merely being hit by photons reflected by their bodies now means I'm intruding on their privacy! That's the extremist ideology I keep talking about from the left.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't believe you, since I've already answered that question many times.

 

[uke2se]

What is, then?

It's not irrelevant.

Start with biological sex being a social construct. That's a perfect example of how the left-wing ideologues claim that your belief determines reality.

Where? I don't see it.

What in the blue **** are you babbling about? They're nude, right in my immediate surrounding. At some point you're going to see some bits. Apparently my eyes merely being hit by photons reflected by their bodies now means I'm intruding on their privacy! That's the extremist ideology I keep talking about from the left.

It's extremist to think you shouldn't mind what other peoples' bodies are like?

I don't believe you, since I've already answered that question many times.

You do understand that policy isn't being created based on someone feeling like a man when born a woman, correct?

 

[Meadmaker]

But isn't the question of when a man is a man and a woman a woman what we're talking about here? This feels more like an offer in a negotiation rather than an argument.

Policy is like that. We can discuss the fundamental nature of "being a man", or we can write laws about whether or not the dude who just gave birth should be eligible for the "Women, Infants, and Children" government program which, as written, only applies to women.

And which locker room to use and......every other case where law or policy distinguishes between men and women.

 

[sylvan8798]

Since it has been explained that this is about the locker-room issue and not about calling people by their preferred pronoun, which locker-room would you prefer this person enter? How about this person? This person? How about this person? This person?

With regard to many of the anti-transgender rights people (not saying that is the case of anyone here, I'll leave that to them) you are starting from the wrong premise. Your question begins from the premise that we allow these individuals to exist openly in society. Many opponents do not want them to be permitted to exist in society. The transgender individuals are either criminal or insane and should be locked up, institutionalized, or at the very least have the crap beat out of them so they don't dare to go out in this condition but are forced to live with whatever they were born with and conform to the expectations of the rest (majority) of society.

I'd like to think the people who think thus are on the wrong side of history, but nowadays who knows?

 

[uke2se]

Policy is like that. We can discuss the fundamental nature of "being a man", or we can write laws about whether or not the dude who just gave birth should be eligible for the "Women, Infants, and Children" government program which, as written, only applies to women.

And which locker room to use and......every other case where law or policy distinguishes between men and women.

Fair enough. My view is that unisex is the way forward. Gets rid of so many problems and will lead to people being far less self-conscious about their bodies as well. Has started popping up at various public spaces in Sweden. The only drawback is that the queues are longer

 

[DragonLady]

Okay; I've read the whole thread, but I have questions:

Why is there a fine for calling someone the wrong gender? To me, that's essentially a fine for "saying mean things" or simply "name calling".

Is there any equivalent fine levied for calling someone names in other circumstances? For instance, if someone refers to a black man as "Boy" does that person face a fine?

What if someone calls a woman "sir"? There are many instances where "sir" is the proper title for a woman, even if she doesn't "like" it, or would prefer to be called something else. If Captain Jane wants to be called "Bunny" do her wishes trump established tradition?

What if the person's preferred pronoun has nothing to do with their gender or sexuality? If the person says "Please call me Cochise" is that valid grounds for charging someone who refuses the same fine? If not, why not?

 

[Belz...]

It's not irrelevant.

That's rather weak. Even in this thread it was hinted that it was the determining factor, if not the only important one. Now, you tell me it's simply not irrelevant, but you're being coy about exactly how you define gender.

It's extremist to think you shouldn't mind what other peoples' bodies are like?

First of all, that's not what I said. Second of all, that's not what you said. That's a new record, I have to say: you simultaneously strawmanned me AND youself in a single sentence.

"Mind your own business" isn't the same as "not minding what other people's bodies are like", and saying that I can't avoid seeing them, and that it may, hypothetically, make a lot of people uncomfortable, is not saying that I mind what their bodies look like, or that I'm not minding my own business.

In short, your response has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, but between yourself and other posters here this has become the norm: you respond to a statement by another poster by substituting something entirely made up for what they've said, and then pretend that they are both one and the same.

 

[Belz...]

Okay; I've read the whole thread, but I have questions:

Why is there a fine for calling someone the wrong gender? To me, that's essentially a fine for "saying mean things" or simply "name calling".

The issue that is raised is that when done in a certain way it amounts to harassment, which is true, and that it needs to be dealth with, which is also true. The potential issue is that the definition of what constitutes "harassment" or "hate speech" has, to say the least, broadened these last couple of decades, going from one extreme, where it was almost entirely ignored, to the other, where the mere feeling of being a victim is enough to prove that you are one.

 

[Belz...]

Your question begins from the premise that we allow these individuals to exist openly in society. Many opponents do not want them to be permitted to exist in society.

But there's more to it. Since we often treat men and women differently, it opens up the possibility of quite a legal mess depending on how you objectively determine whether or not someone is a woman.