Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly looking at things that simplistically doesn't work anymore. Unless you ignore and erase LGBTQ+ people. Gender and sexuality are far more complex than the biological assumptions you are starting with. Potential risk of pregnancy is just a nice way to sidestep the issue.
Potential risk of pregnancy is the *only* issue when it comes to separating teen boys and girls in the scenario described. That's the only reason to do it. They aren't segregated during dinner, for instance.
 
Clearly looking at things that simplistically doesn't work anymore. Unless you ignore and erase LGBTQ+ people. Gender and sexuality are far more complex than the biological assumptions you are starting with. Potential risk of pregnancy is just a nice way to sidestep the issue.
Segregating the males from the females in the scenario meadmaker gave has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with sex. It's not even that the trans person would act like a guy, but that she might act like a teenage girl and be open to experimentation games with another girl. You know like all the rom-coms where the female lead experimented in college. (Don't know how much that actually happens.) One does not have to be gay to experiment.

Teenagers experiment. If my daughter had messed around with her biologically female roommate on a a band trip, there would have been few lasting consequences. Similarly, if I had messed around with my biologically male roommates at band camp (one of which was gay) there would, again, have been few lasting consequences. (Well, social consequences...it was the early 80s.)

Now, I'm sure that there are some parents for whom the trans part is an issue. But that doesn't deligitimize the concerns of those who worry about pregnancy. And trust me, as the parent of two now grown daughter, it's something you worry about even if you don't expect your kids to be celibate until marriage/adulthood.

I know gender is a huge issue in your life. But there are other concerns people have. Sometimes differing concerns come into conflict and one has to take priority over the other. Short of literal life and death, I can't think of a single concern that should always take precedence.
 
Potential risk of pregnancy is the *only* issue when it comes to separating teen boys and girls in the scenario described. That's the only reason to do it. They aren't segregated during dinner, for instance.
If you remove the two main reasons for sex segregation (pregnancy of minors, and the full range of sexual misconduct (mostly by by males) ) what reasons for segregation are left?
 
No, they will not automatically have sex. Cis boys and cis girls in the same room will not automatically have sex, and yet we never allow it.


Wow, this part is so, I don't know, Victorian? Edwardian? No offense intended to any parents here, really, but why wouldn't you trust your own kids, whether straight or gay or bi or cis or trans or whatever?

As far as I can remember I've never felt I can't invite girls into my room, sure there were rules but not any more for girls than for boys, when I was a kid. As far as I can tell, I say, because I can't rule out some covert surveillance I wasn't made aware of -- not spy stuff, just looking out for obvious signs. Anyway, if there was such looking out, I wasn't aware of it.

It could well be I'll have changed my views by the time I actually do get married and have kids -- I hope not, I hope I won't end up there, but it's possible, sure -- but I like to think when I have kids, those kids I'll be friends with, those kids I'll be able to trust. I mean, what's the point otherwise? It's not as if I'm bound by God's law to go forth and multiply. Why multiply at all, if the product of that multiplication isn't someone I can trust and be friends with?

Sorry, don't mean to criticize, and I realize this is kind of OT, or at least very broad and general and not much to do with trans folks specifically, but this image of parenting that kind of thing brings up sounds all grim and the exact opposite of fun. And although I use the word 'fun', I don't mean that frivolously, I mean that kind of beady-eyed surveillance parenting isn't something I'd personally want to have anything to do with, ever. (Like I said though, to be fair it could be my views may have changed when said multiplication is fact rather than distant, maybe hypothetical, prospect.)
 
In a word, modestyWP.

And that's the thing, I have always viewed the purpose of the separation of the genders/sexes to be modesty and privacy concerns, not to prevent sex. And I agree with Chanakya that the view seems pretty regressive, since my parents weren't like that, and neither were any of my friends parents. And I wouldn't be that untrustworthy of my kids either to assume something is going to happen simply because they are with someone of a different sex or gender.

It really seems more like helicopter parenting to me.
 
Do you agree with trans activists that gender is fluid and can change back and forth?

Not generally, for the majority anyway, and it's not really something we all agree on. There is some debate in the trans community on whether gender is binary or not. I personally agree with the view that gender is a spectrum (as well as sex and sexuality) and most of us find ourselves towards one end of the spectrum or another.

Then there are those who fall in between and for some of them their gender is fluid and can fluctuate. Like bisexuals who may find one gender more attractive at one point in their life and a different one at another.

My own gender is very much female and so my gender is not fluid, but there are people who can be fluid in their gender or gender expression, and that's perfectly valid.
 
And that's the thing, I have always viewed the purpose of the separation of the genders/sexes to be modesty and privacy concerns, not to prevent sex. And I agree with Chanakya that the view seems pretty regressive, since my parents weren't like that, and neither were any of my friends parents. And I wouldn't be that untrustworthy of my kids either to assume something is going to happen simply because they are with someone of a different sex or gender.

It really seems more like helicopter parenting to me.


As far as trustworthiness, to be fair, some specific kid or kids may well actually be untrustworthy, whether in things sexual or in any other specific or general area. In which case, sure, the parents need to look out especially hard. I'm not, not even in my present hypothetical perspective of parenting, advocating a, what's the word, panglossian head-in-sand approach. You realize your kid sometimes steals, sure, you look out to prevent it, you look out for why they're doing it at all, you do narrow your eyes to hard-pointed beads, sure. But not as a rule. You don't on principle assume every kid is a thief, nor a raging sex maniac, the hormones notwithstanding. I mean I was a kid too, as were we all once, and while kids are horny, sure, they aren't quite uncontrolled and uncontrollable animals.

I do find it extremely offputting, this view of parents as Big Brother -- Big Father? -- as opposed to simply friend. Friend that looks out for the kid, sure, but doesn't, well, I'm repeating myself now.

I'm saying, as a general rule that general attitude sounds very, sorry I have to say, repulsive. If I found I needed to do that given how my kid has turned out, sure I'd do it, that's different. But I wouldn't aim for it, not make that my template, not in a million years. If my trusted psychic -- I kid, I don't do psychics, figure of speech -- if my psychic read my palm or my tea leaves or their crystal ball and guaranteed me I'd either have to be sticking monitoring gadgets to my kids' ankles or else have to see them become thieves, or drug addicts, or violent gang members, or sex addicts, or pregnant while still in school, or something, my specific kids, why then I'd not have kids at all, ever!

One can adjust if unpleasant happenstance so dictates, but seen as general template, that kind of policing -- helicopter parenting -- is so so so so very offputting a prospect. Again, no offense, but if people really think that's necessary -- not for some specific kid that's turned out that way, which is understandable, but in general -- then I'd respectfully suggest, from an admittedly hypothetical perspective admittedly lacking in actual experience of parenting, that you may not be doing something quite right.
 
What a bizarre concept of "trust".

Would I "trust" that teenagers wouldn't have sex? Wait. What? What does that even mean? I trust them to not do anything bad, but sex isn't bad. Am I supposed to "trust" that they will be abnormal?

As a responsible adult, I don't know who is attracted to whom, who would be up for a little experimentation, who is having some affair that I as a chaperone wouldn't know about, who is going to start a spin the bottle game or where it's going to end. Would I "trust" them to not do any of the things I or my friends did when we were their age? Of course not.

And, I might add, I don't care that they do those things. I just don't want it to be on my watch. Kids are going to start dating. Kids are going to make out. Kids are, eventually, going to have sex. I fully trust that all of those things are going to happen at some point. I would just prefer it not happen at a point when they are in my care, and above all, I would prefer that no one get pregnant while they are doing them.

Will high school kids have sex while on school trips? Most of them won't. Some of them will. More of them will if you give them more privacy. I trust that to be the case.
 
Last edited:
And that's the thing, I have always viewed the purpose of the separation of the genders/sexes to be modesty and privacy concerns, not to prevent sex.
I wouldn't say those concerns are remotely unrelated. When teenagers realize for the first time that they really do want to get naked with someone else, modesty steps aside for the sake of sexuality. This is a formative experience for many, if I'm understanding popular lyrics correctly.

Will high school kids have sex while on school trips? Most of them won't. Some of them will. More of them will if you give them more privacy. I trust that to be the case.
I was part of two or three coeducational ventures in my school days. It would be foolish to say that nothing was going on during those bus trips, and those had relatively limited privacy. Don't get me started on the overnights.
 
Last edited:
Can't talk for other people but when we were teenagers and our parents hung out with other parents with teenagers. She was a bit shag each other a lot.

Maybe l lived in a weird area.
 
What a bizarre concept of "trust".

Would I "trust" that teenagers wouldn't have sex? Wait. What? What does that even mean? I trust them to not do anything bad, but sex isn't bad. Am I supposed to "trust" that they will be abnormal?


We seem to have different ideas of normalcy.

Again, as with my earlier jokingly made observation, I speak only from personal and anecdotal POV, and don't insist my view is necessarily generally correct: but the idea is not to bring up kids that don't have sex. I mean, let them have sex if they want to, let them not have sex if they don't want to, that's their lookout: the trust part comes in where, and I should have thought this is obvious, we're trusting kids to be responsible. Not celibate (or at least, not necessarily celibate), but responsible.

This presupposes having had a very effective Talk, I guess, a very effective series of Talks -- but irrespective of who does it, father and/or mother and/or counselor and/or teacher -- I'd expect your "normal" kid to be responsible. Responsible about not stealing, responsible about not doing hard drugs, responsible about not beating up on other kids, responsible about not having indiscriminate sex, and when/if having sex being responsible about using protection.

Would you say that kind of responsibility is bizarre, abnormal?
 
In a word, modestyWP.

That is a concern, of course, but honestly it's a trivial concern to address when the subject is hotel rooms.

I've shared plenty of hotel rooms with groups of mixed sex, and never seen anyone in their underwear, or less.


ETA: Unless they wanted to be seen, that is.
 
- I'd expect your "normal" kid to be responsible. Responsible about not stealing, responsible about not doing hard drugs, responsible about not beating up on other kids, responsible about not having indiscriminate sex, and when/if having sex being responsible about using protection.

Would you say that kind of responsibility is bizarre, abnormal?

All the time? Never break any of those rules? That would be abnormal. Not bizarre, but abnormal.

Oh ....but I mean....if you had a really good Talk, then no. That works.

The scary thing is that I've met parents who actually think like that.
 
What a bizarre concept of "trust".

Would I "trust" that teenagers wouldn't have sex? Wait. What? What does that even mean? I trust them to not do anything bad, but sex isn't bad. Am I supposed to "trust" that they will be abnormal?

As a responsible adult, I don't know who is attracted to whom, who would be up for a little experimentation, who is having some affair that I as a chaperone wouldn't know about, who is going to start a spin the bottle game or where it's going to end. Would I "trust" them to not do any of the things I or my friends did when we were their age? Of course not.

And, I might add, I don't care that they do those things. I just don't want it to be on my watch. Kids are going to start dating. Kids are going to make out. Kids are, eventually, going to have sex. I fully trust that all of those things are going to happen at some point. I would just prefer it not happen at a point when they are in my care, and above all, I would prefer that no one get pregnant while they are doing them.

Will high school kids have sex while on school trips? Most of them won't. Some of them will. More of them will if you give them more privacy. I trust that to be the case.

I would hopefully have enough trust from my child for me to trust them in return, so that they can be honest with me about those kinds of things and so I can trust them to be responsible if they do have sex by protecting themselves.

Pregnancy is a valid issue, and sex can always happen between teenagers, but my view is that if you keep too tight of a leash, it will eventually break. I wouldn't be one of those parents that acts like more of a friend than a parent. I would be more like my parents, who were strict when they needed to be, but let me have a certain degree of freedom because they knew I was mature enough to handle it responsibly.
 
I think other ways of ruining sex research include writing a book that claims to be the "science of transgenderism" without very much science in it, perpetuates old stereotypes of what constitutes femininity, is more about one's own experience and doesn't seem to involve much listening to one's test subjects.

I disagree. Writing a popular science book based on anecdotes rather than data is quite common. Whether it is a good book or a bad book, it doesn't 'ruin' research. What ruins research is deciding that ideological correctness and emotional comfort are more important than truth.

Or using penile plethysmography to supposedly prove bisexuality doesn't "really exist", and dragging it out of the archives and releasing it to the press right at the moment one is criticised for a book that may make people think "... so if there are two very distinct types of transsexuals, one extremely homosexual and the other extremely heterosexual, what about bisexual transsexuals?"

I assume you are referring to this article. Of course, it doesn't 'prove bisexuality doesn't exist', but failed to find evidence for bisexual arousal patterns associated with subjective attraction. The closest statement I can find to this effect is 'Indeed, with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists'. Subsequently it was shown through further research that male bisexual arousal patterns do in fact exist. That is how science is supposed to work.
 
All the time? Never break any of those rules? That would be abnormal. Not bizarre, but abnormal.


But that might apply to any and every thing. A child may, one time, steal; having done that once they may then make a habit of it; so will you treat your child like a potential thief, keeping valuables locked out of reach? Or will you never give your child privacy, because they may misuse that privacy to do drugs? Or will you never let them spend money unmonitored, because who knows what kind of narcotic they may buy with it? Or never let them browse online unmonitored, because who knows what religion or ideology they might then get radicalized by?



Oh ....but I mean....if you had a really good Talk, then no. That works.


You mock the Talk, but you want to guide your kids, surely, not police them? What other non-invasive way is there to do that, than a series of Talks? As I see it -- now I think about this -- effective Talking, friendly yet firm, helpful yet non-invasive, guiding yet not helicoptering, is probably a large part of what successfully bringing up a child is about, or should be. As well as nurturing an environment and a relationship where such is feasible, and where the idea of such isn't the kind of joke you appear to think it is.

(Again, thus spake the guy who's not yet had kids, who's not even married yet. That's how I feel -- feel strongly I guess, now I've thought about this -- but I don't know, reality may yet bring me around to your more cynical way of thinking, We'll see.)


So anyway, do you have this kind of don't-let-the-kids-out-of-your-sight-FSM-knows-what-damage-they'll-do-to-themselves-and-others attitude for everything, like drugs, like 'bad company', like filching things, like violence towards other kids, whatever? Or is it just the boy-girl sex thing, just that? I'm trying to understand your POV. That does make some kind of sense, the just-pregnancy thing, because pregnancy is something big, sure -- but hey, so's doing drugs, so's ganging up and beating up other kids, so's a lot of things. I mean, surely what we're looking for, as norm, is kids we can, that word again, trust?


The scary thing is that I've met parents who actually think like that.


Heh, touche again. :)

But know what, I could say the same about your approach, that it scares me, right?

Okay, jokes and hyperbole apart, I do find your approach, not scary, no, but disagreeable certainly. Here's why:

That you're unable to trust your kids when it comes to responsible sexual behavior means one of three things:

(1) Either your own kids (kids you draw experience from to believe what you do, not necessarily your offspring) are actually not trustworthy. That makes your reaction rational, as far as "your" kids specifically. But what isn't rational is your extrapolating from that to imagine all/most kids are likewise untrustworthy. And that's disagreeable in so far as you might influence policy for other kids on that basis.

Or, (2) You're simply being unreasonably cynical and suspicious. That's disagreeable and not quite healthy for all kids your attitude might influence, yours as well as others'.

Or, (3) Your suspicions are well founded, and most kids are indeed not really trustworthy. They'll probably get knocked up, or get other kids pregnant, or do drugs, or steal, or beat up on others, not always but once in a while, if left unmonitored.

That is, as far as this third possibility, my own ideas, basis the kind of kid I'd been myself and the kinds of kids I've known, is atypical, is not the norm. Sure, that's entirely possible, I see that. But that also is disagreeable to me, since in that case, if constant policing seems the only safe way to bring up kids, then -- as I see it now, although it could be I might change my mind going forward -- I don't ever want the bother and the hassle and the grim un-fun prospect of being blighted with Big Brother parenthood at all!

~~~

And of course, what is disagreeable to me, or suspicious to you, is no basis to rationally decide on the truth value of a proposition. Can kids, generally speaking, be trusted? Is the norm kids that don't get pregnant, don't do hard drugs, don't get radicalized, kids that are, you know, responsible and trustworthy, given the right upbringing? Valid question in its own right, that, and I guess subject for another, separate full-blown discussion thread, should people want to go down that path.
 
Can kids, generally speaking, be trusted? Is the norm kids that don't get pregnant, don't do hard drugs, don't get radicalized, kids that are, you know, responsible and trustworthy, given the right upbringing?

Given the right upbringing, kids will do dumb things, because their brains are not fully formed. That's just reality.

If you're lucky, it won't be your kids, but all you can do through good parenting is increase the odds.


Meanwhile, dragging it back on topic, if you throw young men and young women together into hotel rooms, you push the odds in the wrong direction.

So what happens if you throw a transgirl and girls into the same hotel room? Well, I have no idea, really, but I do know that things are different, and I do know that the possible outcomes that I truly care about are the exact same as if I threw a cis-boy into the same hotel room, because, biologically, they are exactly the same.

Beyond the risk of pregnancy, which is a real, though unlikely, possibility, there's just some absurdity in suggesting that somehow the regular girls in that room ought to all just act like this is all perfectly normal and pay no attention to the girl with the penis.
 
Beyond the risk of pregnancy, which is a real, though unlikely, possibility, there's just some absurdity in suggesting that somehow the regular girls in that room ought to all just act like this is all perfectly normal and pay no attention to the girl with the penis.
This isn't framed quite right, I think. It's not so much about the reaction of the cis girls as it is whether the parents or the school would allow the penis in the girls' room. If the parents or the school decide that the cis boys are not to be in the girls' rooms on the basis of a possible pregnancy, then it's logical that the same would apply to the trans girl for the very same reason (without GRS or hormone therapy, just to take the limit case).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom