Transgender man gives birth

[uke2se]

I repeatedly made the point that if someone is not around it's impossible to ask.

You repeatedly refused to understand that very simple point.

That is being obtuse.

I'm having trouble understanding why you would be in a situation where you need to address a tran-gendered person by any pronoun where nobody is around. You can call that being obtuse if you want, but I seriously don't get it.

Yes, I did. Twice. I said "I didn't ask" and "I didn't stay to see how they would act."

Fair enough. You don't know anything about the men in question, but you felt they were up to no good. It was an emotional response on your part.

Refusing to understand is being obtuse.

Not understanding isn't.

Right. I call "obtuse" for the third time. Just need a couple more.... It still doesn't make or break an argument.

You can call it whatever you want. I really don't care. I'd like to expand the question to anyone reading along: Do you understand what DragonLady is saying has to do with anything? If so, could you explain it to me, please?

Yep. That's the world we live in, and always have. Funny how the majority is all good when it works for you, but a tyrant when it doesn't.

You don't understand the world you live in. That much is clear.

Yeah. That's four...just one more to go!

Four what?

And...five for BINGO!!!!

I've answered that one, too.

Not that I recall, no. You answered about trans-women. I now ask you to clarify if it applies to trans-men as well. Because, if you agree that trans-women should use the women's locker room and trans-men should use the men's locker room, we are in full agreement, and this adversarial discussion is pointless.

Okay; fine...I'll give you this free space.

Thank you for your magnanimous gesture. It's not like my experience trumps yours in this case.

So is being transgendered.

Mhmm... and yet, you seem to believe we need to have special rules in place due to the risk of people (men) being rapists, but none for trans-gendered.

So if I'm not supposed to consider the people who use the goodwill of others against them because it's rare, why am I supposed to consider another group because it's rare?

You are supposed to treat one group as not-necessarily rapists and another as rapists.

Why is the one any more deserving of consideration than the other?

Why are trans-gendered people more deserving of consideration than rapists? This is your question?

Who should be responsible, and WHY? WHY should this tiny group of people be ceded the "tyranny of the minority"

Because what they ask isn't unreasonable, and is no huge burden for the majority. In essense, they are asking to be treated as humans.

That's fine. But that doesn't give anyone else the right to force you to be on board; and that's the real point of all this. These rare people want to be able to force the everyone else into their clown car, despite how uncomfortable or unsafe it might make many of us feel.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Nobody can. I am asking you to show some humanity. You are refusing to. I don't understand why.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm having trouble understanding why you would be in a situation where you need to address a tran-gendered person by any pronoun where nobody is around. You can call that being obtuse if you want, but I seriously don't get it.

I gave an example in the very first post. The one you responded to. When inquiring about a third person who is not present, you cannot know what pronoun they would prefer. If no one else knows either, people are forced to make the same kinds of assumptions -and mistakes- that are already made with regard to gender. Difference is: they don't risk being fined for it.

"Pat.... Guy or girl? Does anyone here know?"

Usually we default to either "them" or "him".

"When Pat gets here, tell him to come see me."

So, the original point was that our language doesn't really include a term for "other", except "it" and I'm pretty sure no one thinks that is appropriate.

Fair enough. You don't know anything about the men in question, but you felt they were up to no good. It was an emotional response on your part.

Right. That is the prudent decision. The one that keeps people safe. When someone who makes YOU uncomfortable, you have the option of leaving.

Not understanding isn't

.

Fine. I'm trying to spell it out for you. Although it would certainly be easier for both of us if you would simply re-read what I wrote.

You don't understand the world you live in. That much is clear.

You know nothing about me.



I need to leave my keyboard for a while. I'll be back to respond to the rest of your post a bit later. I'll either edit this post, or create a new one then.

 

[uke2se]

I gave an example in the very first post. The one you responded to. When inquiring about a third person who is not present, you cannot know what pronoun they would prefer. If no one else knows either, people are forced to make the same kinds of assumptions -and mistakes- that are already made with regard to gender. Difference is: they don't risk being fined for it.

"Pat.... Guy or girl? Does anyone here know?"

Usually we default to either "them" or "him".

"When Pat gets here, tell him to come see me."

So, the original point was that our language doesn't really include a term for "other", except "it" and I'm pretty sure no one thinks that is appropriate.

But there you have a third person. The person you are talking to. You could raise the issue with that person. If he/she knows the trans-gendered person better than you, he/she will no doubt tell you. If he/she doesn't know the trans-gendered person better than you, there's no real issue, and you can call the trans-gendered person whatever you want.

My point is, when you are talking to a trans-gendered person, use his/her prefered pronoun. If you're not sure, ask. If there's no trans-gendered person around, use whatever you want. All to be polite.

Right. That is the prudent decision. The one that keeps people safe. When someone who makes YOU uncomfortable, you have the option of leaving.

You are right. But prudency and rights are two different things.

Fine. I'm trying to spell it out for you. Although it would certainly be easier for both of us if you would simply re-read what I wrote.

And I'm trying to understand. I really am.

You know nothing about me.

I know from what you have written here that you don't understand the issues trans-gendered people face. Nor, it seems, do you much care.

 

[sylvan8798]

So, the original point was that our language doesn't really include a term for "other", except "it" and I'm pretty sure no one thinks that is appropriate.

They/them has been widely discussed as an appropriate alternative.

Right. That is the prudent decision. The one that keeps people safe. When someone who makes YOU uncomfortable, you have the option of leaving.

Perhaps there will come a time when the people who are uncomfortable with a transwoman in the woman's room will be the minority. And THEY will be the ones with the option of leaving.

 

[DragonLady]

But there you have a third person. The person you are talking to. You could raise the issue with that person. If he/she knows the trans-gendered person better than you, he/she will no doubt tell you. If he/she doesn't know the trans-gendered person better than you, there's no real issue, and you can call the trans-gendered person whatever you want.

My point is, when you are talking to a trans-gendered person, use his/her prefered pronoun. If you're not sure, ask. If there's no trans-gendered person around, use whatever you want. All to be polite.

[sigh]

I give up. You win.

You are right. But prudency and rights are two different things.

Yes; and they always have been. Maybe neither of those men were any threat to me. But should I make that experiment, when the results could be so costly? Should anyone.

I say: You can be "right", but that doesn't mean you'll survive the encounter, and no person of any persuasion should gamble their safety for the sake of someone else's feelings.

And I'm trying to understand. I really am.

I'm sorry, but it really doesn't seem that you are.

I know from what you have written here that you don't understand the issues trans-gendered people face. Nor, it seems, do you much care.

Again; you know nothing about me. I'm not transgendered; so maybe I don't have a full grasp of the issues, but that doesn't mean I don't care or don't feel for them.

I simply do not believe that a single individual or very tiny segment of the population should be granted the ability to make others feel uncomfortable or unsafe for their sakes.

As I said upstream: I suffer an oddball allergy. I do not attempt to make other people change their behaviors for the sake of my comfort. Whining about the "tyranny of the majority" should not -and does not- give me the right to demand special services, special treatment, or special spaces so that I don't have to suffer the natural consequences of chance and circumstance.

---------

Now...to continue from before:

Not that I recall, no. You answered about trans-women. I now ask you to clarify if it applies to trans-men as well. Because, if you agree that trans-women should use the women's locker room and trans-men should use the men's locker room, we are in full agreement, and this adversarial discussion is pointless.

My words were:

If you have the equipment to rape women, stay out of the women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc.

If you have the equipment to be forcibly penetrated, and look like a woman*, stay out of the areas most often frequented by those heterosexuals with male parts.

*Yes; I realize those with male parts can be forcibly penetrated, too, but I believe it's much rarer, and those thus endowed have a far better chance of defending themselves, at least one-on-one.

I'll take out the "rarity" comment just for you.

It's not like my experience trumps yours in this case.

I don't know. Maybe it does. What is your experience?

Mhmm... and yet, you seem to believe we need to have special rules in place due to the risk of people (men) being rapists, but none for trans-gendered.

No. We need to have rules in place to protect the vast majority of people from as many types of harm and discomfort as possible, even if we're not able to cover every possible circumstance or every single individual.

Again: there's no reason or excuse for any government agency to decree that DragonLady is so unique and so special that everyone on the planet should change their personal habits so she -and she alone- can enjoy a cultural event in safety and comfort. DragonLady is perfectly capable of making plans to accommodate her own needs; and if none can be found, she can stay at home. Throughout history, plenty of people have been faced with that choice, and the world did not stop for them.

Why are trans-gendered people more deserving of consideration than rapists? This is your question?

You know.... I think I was wrong....

I think you're just pretending not to understand. You know damn good and well that was not what I was saying, so your response here is not a lack of understanding, but a deliberate and intentional attempt to misrepresent my words.

Because what they ask isn't unreasonable, and is no huge burden for the majority. In essense, they are asking to be treated as humans.

If their behavior or one of the consequences of the choices they've made is making other people uncomfortable or feel unsafe, then yes, it is unreasonable.

If their behavior or one of the consequences of the choices they've made is making them uncomfortable or putting them at risk of harm, then yes, it is unreasonable.

Humans are treated all kinds of ways. Some of them deserve their treatment, and some do not. But no one among us has the right to stop the world because it's standing on our toes.

 

[DragonLady]

Perhaps there will come a time when the people who are uncomfortable with a transwoman in the woman's room will be the minority. And THEY will be the ones with the option of leaving.

Yes; and if that day comes, there will be other problems to discuss.

But right now, today, I don't see any real solution to the issue that doesn't leave someone either uncomfortable, or at-risk.

The very best solution right now would be extra facilities installed in public places, but financially I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[uke2se]

Yes; and they always have been. Maybe neither of those men were any threat to me. But should I make that experiment, when the results could be so costly? Should anyone.

I say: You can be "right", but that doesn't mean you'll survive the encounter, and no person of any persuasion should gamble their safety for the sake of someone else's feelings.

I understand what you're saying. I understand that someone who has a bad experience as a child with someone following them into the locker room would keep suffering reactions to that later in life. My point is, we can't punish a whole group of people for the actions of two - who by all accounts weren't even part of that group of people.

Again; you know nothing about me. I'm not transgendered; so maybe I don't have a full grasp of the issues, but that doesn't mean I don't care or don't feel for them.

I simply do not believe that a single individual or very tiny segment of the population should be granted the ability to make others feel uncomfortable or unsafe for their sakes.

The problem is that you get uncomfortable in a situation were there's no rational reason to get uncomfortable. This is a situation were we all need to take a step back and think about if and why it would make us uncomfortable to see someone with the wrong bits in a locker room. We're not talking about seeing a man in a women's locker room. We're talking about seeing a woman with male bits in a women's locker room. Why would that make us feel uncomfortable?

If you are suffering trauma from rape, you should be treated for that trauma. It's no reason to pre-emptively judge a whole group of people.

As I said upstream: I suffer an oddball allergy. I do not attempt to make other people change their behaviors for the sake of my comfort. Whining about the "tyranny of the majority" should not -and does not- give me the right to demand special services, special treatment, or special spaces so that I don't have to suffer the natural consequences of chance and circumstance.

Actually, depending on the allergy, you have every right to expect concessions from your environment. All depending on the circumstances.

---------

Now...to continue from before:



My words were:



I'll take out the "rarity" comment just for you.

Then what you are saying is that-gendered people should not go into locker rooms at all. How does that make any sense?

I don't know. Maybe it does. What is your experience?

Law enforcement.

No. We need to have rules in place to protect the vast majority of people from as many types of harm and discomfort as possible, even if we're not able to cover every possible circumstance or every single individual.

I thouroughly disagree. We should not be expected to be protected from discomfort. There are no rights to be free from discomfort. If I feel discomfort from someone else being in my locker-room, I need to get over it. They have the same right to be there as I do.

Again: there's no reason or excuse for any government agency to decree that DragonLady is so unique and so special that everyone on the planet should change their personal habits so she -and she alone- can enjoy a cultural event in safety and comfort. DragonLady is perfectly capable of making plans to accommodate her own needs; and if none can be found, she can stay at home. Throughout history, plenty of people have been faced with that choice, and the world did not stop for them.

There is reason and excuse to decree that you should be treated as a human being, equal to the way all other human beings are treated.

You know.... I think I was wrong....

I think you're just pretending not to understand. You know damn good and well that was not what I was saying, so your response here is not a lack of understanding, but a deliberate and intentional attempt to misrepresent my words.

Actually, that was what your words meant. If you meant something different, write something different.

If their behavior or one of the consequences of the choices they've made is making other people uncomfortable or feel unsafe, then yes, it is unreasonable.

Ah, so you are of the mistaken belief that being trans-gendered is a choice. You should take the time to read up on it before we continue our conversation, because you are coming at it from comletely the wrong direction.

 

[GlennB]

Because what they ask isn't unreasonable, and is no huge burden for the majority. In essense, they are asking to be treated as humans.

I'd say that the cis-women in the communal showers or changing rooms can also lay claim to the right to be "treated as humans" in not being exposed to male body parts in an environment that is understood to be reserved for women.

You have, throughout, given the transgender person carte blanche to act as they see fit, while denying similar rights to the majority. DragonLady is correct - you've rejected 'the tyranny of the majority' while accepting 'the tyranny of the minority' and see nothing wrong with that.

 

[uke2se]

I'd say that the cis-women in the communal showers or changing rooms can also lay claim to the right to be "treated as humans" in not being exposed to male body parts in an environment that is understood to be reserved for women.

Are you saying that? That's it's a right for cis-women to not see penises at the communal showers?

ETA: Specifically, that seeing penises means cis-women aren't being treated as human beings?

You have, throughout, given the transgender person carte blanche to act as they see fit, while denying similar rights to the majority.

No, I ******* haven't. Read my posts.

DragonLady is correct - you've rejected 'the tyranny of the majority' while accepting 'the tyranny of the minority' and see nothing wrong with that.

Nope. You have no idea what I'm saying because you evidently don't read my posts.

 

[3point14]

The sooner we all get over this puritanical ******** that makes so many petrified of the naked human body or terrified that someone might see theirs, the better.

 

[DragonLady]

If you are suffering trauma from rape, you should be treated for that trauma. It's no reason to pre-emptively judge a whole group of people.

I am not suffering trauma from rape. Every time I was afraid I was risk of being raped, I left the situation as calmly, quietly, and quickly as possible. Thankfully, that was good enough. But for countless others it has not been.

Do not make the mistake of believing for a single moment that I will ever discount the very real and very reasonable fears and discomfort anyone might experience if they are made to feel they are at risk of rape or other bodily harm.

No one owes anyone that.

 

[sylvan8798]

Yes; and if that day comes, there will be other problems to discuss.

But right now, today, I don't see any real solution to the issue that doesn't leave someone either uncomfortable, or at-risk.

The very best solution right now would be extra facilities installed in public places, but financially I don't see that happening any time soon.

You do realize that in many places trans women use women's restrooms and locker rooms every day without penalty or incident, right? That armada has already launched. You are not going to drive it back into port. Most of us will adjust.

 

[DragonLady]

The sooner we all get over this puritanical ******** that makes so many petrified of the naked human body or terrified that someone might see theirs, the better.

It seems to me in this circumstance everyone is being expected to stop caring who sees them naked or under what circumstances.

I'm sorry; but I think we should each retain -forever- the choice to deny an eyeful to anyone we choose, for any reason.

 

[DragonLady]

You do realize that in many places trans women use women's restrooms and locker rooms every day without penalty or incident, right? That armada has already launched. You are not going to drive it back into port. Most of us will adjust.

I've already addressed that upstream.

If that person looks female, and is simply using the facilities without calling attention to herself, so no one is the wiser, then she is not making anyone uncomfortable, and is not making anyone feel unsafe.

Apparently she feels safe and comfortable as well -but if not, she should stop doing it.

I'm not 100% happy about it, as I still believe the situation is ripe to be exploited by those would use the situation as an opportunity to cause harm.

But I do know it happens.

 

[uke2se]

I've already addressed that upstream.

If that person looks female, and is simply using the facilities without calling attention to herself, so no one is the wiser, then she is not making anyone uncomfortable, and is not making anyone feel unsafe.

Apparently she feels safe and comfortable as well -but if not, she should stop doing it.

I'm not 100% happy about it, as I still believe the situation is ripe to be exploited by those would use the situation as an opportunity to cause harm.

But I do know it happens.

What do you believe should happen if another visitor to the locker room discovered that the trans-woman wasn't all woman and decided to make a fuss about it? Who ought to leave? Who, among those two, has a right to be there?

 

[Belz...]

The sooner we all get over this puritanical ******** that makes so many petrified of the naked human body or terrified that someone might see theirs, the better.

You don't think a woman being seen naked by a naked man is justified in being concerned?

 

[Belz...]

You do realize that in many places trans women use women's restrooms and locker rooms every day without penalty or incident, right? That armada has already launched.

More of a small task force, really.

You are not going to drive it back into port.

I've already addressed that upstream.

Cut that out, mateys.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It seems kind of strange that some people imagine that rapists, who are willing to invade a locker room and commit a terrible crime, will feel emboldened by transgender access to locker rooms.
What's holding back these rapists now? Politeness?

 

[Belz...]

It seems kind of strange that some people imagine that rapists, who are willing to invade a locker room and commit a terrible crime, will feel emboldened by transgender access to locker rooms.

Yes, it's very weird. I don't see any evidence for such a claim.

 

[DragonLady]

It seems kind of strange that some people imagine that rapists, who are willing to invade a locker room and commit a terrible crime, will feel emboldened by transgender access to locker rooms.
What's holding back these rapists now? Politeness?

Right now, I don't think enough male-shaped people enter women's restrooms -or vice-versa for it to seem "normal" enough not to call some attention.

But if it starts to happen all the time, so people stop paying any attention, those who would exploit it will.

"Oh, I've no idea...so many men-shaped-people have entered that room today that I simply didn't notice, and of course...it would be dehumanizing to ask any questions............"