Transgender man gives birth

[Ziggurat]

Because the way Arg said it sounded like everyone had agreed on that conclusion. That you're a bigot if X. As opposed to it being an extreme position not being advocated in this discussion. That's why it was called a lie.

No, Lithrael, that's absolutely NOT why tyr called it a lie. Seriously, go back to tyr's post. He didn't say that it's a fringe position, nor did he say that it's not being advanced in this thread. You have substituted your own objections for tyr's.

 

[Mumbles]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4747200/amp/Transgender-man-gives-birth-son.html

Woman feels she is really a man.

Woman gets surgery, takes hormones, and lives like a man.

Now a transgender Man, "he" gets pregnant and gives birth to a healthy baby.

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.

Because said person asked you to.

Am I the only one who has seen this OP, and just had that same reaction, every time?

 

[Belz...]

Transgender people *believe* their sex doesn't match their gender.

There is probably either a chemical or hormonal or structural, genetically-driven reason behind said belief. Contrary to some here would like us to believe, saying that doesn't mean transgender people aren't people, or that they should be harassed, or that they should off themselves. However, it also does not mean that suddenly, gender is all about, or mainly about, or even significantly about, that belief.

 

[Belz...]

"Oh? Nobody would call me a bigot if X? Well somebody in a thread from last year says I'm a bigot if X so you're wrong" like yes 40 tech points but can we please have a conversation instead of that?

Perhaps you didn't follow, but my comment was in response to someone bringing up that exact scenario, and the last time that was discussed here, to my knowledge, was the thread I was refering to.

Because the way Arg said it sounded like everyone had agreed on that conclusion.

That is your interpretation. It was no way intended like that, nor reasonably interpreted like that.

 

[Lithrael]

You're not talking about this?

These are especially stupid or dishonest straw men. No one has here has made any argument even adjacent to this. The quote from Argumemnon there is a straight up lie. No one has said you're a bigot if you don't want to date or have sexual relations with a transwoman. No one has implied that.

If you are, we're honestly just reading it differently.

 

[Lithrael]

That is your interpretation. It was no way intended like that, nor reasonably interpreted like that.

Every time I've interacted with you in this thread has been me trying to guess what you meant because you didn't spell anything out. It's like you're making shadow puppets and I go "is it a bunny?" and you go "I in no way meant for that to be a bunny"

I'll respectfully withdraw from this thread, it's way too frustrating for me.

 

[kmortis]

Knock off the personalization

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[ponderingturtle]

biologically xx is female and xy is male,
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

But there can't be any exceptions, we start making one exception here and then we have to start treating transgender people as if they were people and not constantly belittle them as they deserve for being different.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So we have a person who is a man (gender is masculine), but not a male (because his sex is female). Great. Good terms.


Take down all the locker room signs that say "men" and replace them with ones that say "male", and it works for me.

Oh.......not everyone agrees? Hmmm.....figures.

And we totally have to stop pretending androgen insenstive men are women. They need to use the male locker room. Simple and direct.

You can't depend on a simple look at someones genitals to be sure what their sex is after all. You need detailed physicals to determine what locker room someone is allowed to use.

 

[Belz...]

Every time I've interacted with you in this thread has been me trying to guess what you meant because you didn't spell anything out.

So ask for clarification. It isn't hard, and it sure beats adding your own interpretation which, by the way, is not justified by you not understanding my points or arguments.

 

[xjx388]

All the other women, you imagine? Or do you imagine only some of them? What else do you imagine?

I imagined that the other women would MOSTLY be uncomfortable. I don't think that's off-base. See my reply to Aepervius below.

Why not? I consider a trans-woman in the transition phase to be a trans-woman. Why can't you?

For most situations, I absolutely would. But there are other certain situations where it would make me uncomfortable. A pre surgical transman in my dressing room would be one of those situations. It would just be weird -a man with breasts and vagina walking around naked in the common areas. I would probably be cool with it after the initial discomfort because I'm not really that uncomfortable with nudity; I could roll with it. I think women are even more sensitive than men when it comes to these kinds of intimate situations.

What problem is that?

Objective reality in conflict with self-perception and the social issues involved.

Poll shows about 66% acceptance among young women of TG women in women changing room (accepting or not having opinion), and a 33% acceptance in old women. ETA: interestingly it seems similar among gender by age. So the factor on rejection/acceptance is not gender, but age.

Conversely that also means about young women 33% reject their presence, and 66% older women.

The reuter poll is the first I found but a quick glance shows similar polls.

So I think xjx388 contention of some women being uneasy is valid.

I would also add that responding to a poll is one thing; being confronted with a person who has a penis openly walking around in your dressing room is quite another. You didn't say anything about pre-surgical transwomen so I'm not sure if the poll covered that situation. But still, it reveals significant discomfort in the general idea of transgendered people in a locker room situation.

 

[sylvan8798]

Is discomfort or expectation of discomfort a reason to exclude a group of people from something carte blanche? It seems like we have, on occasion, rejected that idea. By "we" I mean our representative system or society in general, not people on this forum in general or specific.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So since I'm the one who brought up locker rooms, I'll chime in.

The locker room is a concrete example of a more general situation. The question is about whether someone feeling like/identifying as a particular gender actually made him that gender. Is a biological male who identifies as female, really female?*

That's a rather abstract question. We can debate if this fellow who just gave birth is "really" a man or not. Our answer will not have any real significance all by itself. He/she will be exactly the same person, regardless of whether we call him/her a woman or a man. (To refer to an oft-quoted story, usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln, if we call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.)
.

Which is why you need detailed physicals before you can get in any locker room.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't click on the links, but unless they are naked in the pictures, with the naughty bits displayed, I can't answer the question.

Yes, I am actually saying it. Genitalia trumps all.

So it is morphology not biology that really matters now. But only genital. And yet no one seems to want to have public inspection of genitals as required entry into all locker rooms. IT is the obvious answer.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So many open-minded and progressive people on here that don't give a hoot about locker rooms and who should go in which. That's just great, bully for you. But please realize you are the VAST minority of people.

I have body image issues, it's hard enough for me to use a men's only locker room, having women in there, regardless of their own mental health issues would cause me great discomfort. My wife relayed to me that she would feel extremely uncomfortable if there were a man in the locker room at the gym, regardless of their "identity."

Is this get rid of the trans women or trans men from your locker room? Which one do you want in there with you? Likewise your wife.

From the first paragraph it seems to be ban all trans people because they are not a high enough percentage to matter. But what is that percentage, why do gay people meet that percentage but not trans people?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How would you refer to this person? Him or her?

And do you want him in the locker room with your wife?

 

[GlennB]

Objective reality in conflict with self-perception and the social issues involved.

Agreed. No matter how much a person might identify as female*, if they need (and here I'm assuming the truth of my guess - just ftsoa) a catheter to deal with a urogenital problem and ask for a female-style catheter then their doctor is fully entitled to point out that, physically, they are not 'female' as they possess male genitals and need a male's catheter.

(*And reverse the whole scenario if you wish.)

Self-identification doesn't trump physical reality.

To go back to my 'dating scene' a while back - if the cis-hetero-male notes that his date is not cis-female and wasn't made aware of this before they met up then I'd say he'd be very entitled to be pretty miffed. He doesn't become a bigot for refusing to get sexual with her, nor even for going off in a huff; he* shouldn't have been exposed to the situation in the first place.

(*See * above)

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

How would you refer to this person? Him or her?

That's an easy one: him.

 

[Wolrab]

Agreed. No matter how much a person might identify as female*, if they need (and here I'm assuming the truth of my guess - just ftsoa) a catheter to deal with a urogenital problem and ask for a female-style catheter then their doctor is fully entitled to point out that, physically, they are not 'female' as they possess male genitals and need a male's catheter.

(*And reverse the whole scenario if you wish.)

Self-identification doesn't trump physical reality.

To go back to my 'dating scene' a while back - if the cis-hetero-male notes that his date is not cis-female and wasn't made aware of this before they met up then I'd say he'd be very entitled to be pretty miffed. He doesn't become a bigot for refusing to get sexual with her, nor even for going off in a huff; he* shouldn't have been exposed to the situation in the first place.

(*See * above)

I would use the same type of catheter on a man or a woman.

 

[uke2se]

To go back to my 'dating scene' a while back - if the cis-hetero-male notes that his date is not cis-female and wasn't made aware of this before they met up then I'd say he'd be very entitled to be pretty miffed. He doesn't become a bigot for refusing to get sexual with her, nor even for going off in a huff; he* shouldn't have been exposed to the situation in the first place.

(*See * above)

It's good that nobody is arguing differently then, isn't it?

Do you honestly think we're saying that you must be comfortable dating a chick with a dick or we'll call you a bigot?