Are you Politically Correct?

[AmazonQueen]

One question Cloud. Do you really care if they're 100% comfortable with you as long as they're granting you equal rights and status. Just curious on your perspective.

Tolerance is better than bigotry, but acceptance is better.

 

[rah]

Since woman's bathroom have privacy stalls, is that really a big issue?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah I'm struggling to see the contradiction in that sentence. If you'd ended with "but biologically he's a dude" that would have been contradictory.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe we should have a thread about when to use "woman" and when to use "women", then make it compulsory reading for participation in threads like these.

 

[rah]

Tolerance is better than bigotry, but acceptance is better.

100% comfortable is not exactly the same as acceptance but I get your point.
I don't think you can ever expect that. I can't wrap my head around having sex with another man. That doesn't mean I can't accept gay men for what they are and attribute them respect and equal rights.

 

[Zardnaar]

100% comfortable is not exactly the same as acceptance but I get your point.
I don't think you can ever expect that. I can't wrap my head around having sex with another man. That doesn't mean I can't accept gay men for what they are and attribute them respect and equal rights.

I'm crap at expressing myself on forums but it's how I look at it.

 

[red_elk]

And no, there are no important differences between trans women and women.

For you maybe, I accept that. But you can't decide what's important and what is not for others.

 

[Gorbles]

@red_elk - that's what discussion is for. But you seem too worried about being called a transphobe to provide actual specific differences and their relative importance..

There's a lot of logistical problems here it's not so much about the individual. The following things I have not yet seen a satisfactory answer to.

1. We have universal health system here resource s are scarce. Should it cover gender reassignment surgery.

2. Should pre op trans men be allowed to use women's bathrooms. Women don't like that idea much.

3. Logistics of building new public bathrooms. It's not really feasible and it effects 0.02% of the population here.

4. Trans women pre surgery competing in female sports.

5. Post op trans women competing in female sports.

They've had trans weight lifters and cyclists here winning events and the females are not happy.

It's in these situations I draw the line. I don't think it's fair a man can declear they're female take hormones and expect to be allowed to compete in female sports.

Was it Serena Williams world's number 1 women couldn't defeat a man ranked around 200 in an intergender match.

You're opening up a breadth of topics that can just as easily be read up on. Especially if you're keeping on repeating "men declaring themselves female". Not only are you re-asserting transphobic talking points, but you're changing the subject while you do so. Regardless, in no specific order:

1. You'd be surprised to understand just how much a person changes when they (physically / medically) transition.
2. You cannot speak for all women when you're clearly either referencing actual transphobes, or people with actual trauma relating to someone with the appearance of a man as a trigger. The latter being an incredibly specific theoretical justification to support your point.
3. The same goes for pre-op trans women in sports. A very specific construction, presumably because you're opposed to it. Weirdly, you're not focusing on trans men in sports, which again, is a common transphobic framing of the situation. Think about it though. How many known trans athletes have won awards? Can you name any without resorting to Google? How many does Google reference, compared to the number of cis athletes that regularly win?
4. The rest of your points are basically "should we spend money on a marginalised minority", which uh ideally, yes. Like, this is a no-brainer. Where that money comes from would, again, be a whole other topic.

No no no. I perfectly understand that people would react negatively to being misgendered, and this may indeed be very hurtful. I'm not arguing that this is a nice thing to do, or that they are wrong to be upset by it (not that right/wrong is even an appropriate way of characterising involuntary emotional reactions, they simply "are"). So I'm not arguing that they should just suck it up, or that this is a reasonable or nice way to behave, or anything like that.

I'm simply saying that if someone does behave that way, then it's simply incorrect to characterise that as "denying my existence". No-one is denying that anyone else exists, nor even denying that they sincerely believe the thing that you do not also believe about them. "You're literally denying my existence" is just hyperbolic screeching and not accurate.

It could also be argued that if your sense of your own existence hinges so strongly on other people around you reinforcing a particular belief about yourself, then that... well that could indicate that there's some doubt about it even in your own mind couldn't it? After all it would take an incredible number of people insisting I only had one leg, plus at least some form of independent evidence, before I stopped being certain of the fact that I had two.

No you're just misrepresenting again. I am not asking "why are people upset" at all. This is nothing to do with what I am saying. It's obvious why people would be upset, I don't need to ask that. What I am "basically" saying is that disagreeing with someone about some aspect (any aspect) of their identity, does not constitute a denial of their existence. Also, once again since you still didn't seem to get it, I am not equating the identities themselves. I am not saying being a woman is the same as being the Pope. Nor am I saying that believing you're a woman is the same as believing you're the Pope. I'm talking about the reaction to having your identity questioned, whatever that identity is. I shouldn't need to keep spelling that out and I'm not going to again.

Well, at the very least, we're getting down into particulars, even if this is a complete loop to however long ago in the thread for me. I'm repeating myself, basically, and while I certainly don't expect folks at this stage to read the whole thread, jumping in to try and prove me wrong requires at least some understanding of what I might have already answered. I'm not saying you should go and do that, simply explaining where I'm at, which informs my reactions some of the time.

Someone's gender is a core aspect of their identity. It is a large part of their mental existence; their psyche. For you and I (presumably, as you don't seem to understand how severe this can be), we align with that, physically and mentally. I am perfectly at ease in being a guy, and having a guy's body. For people not in that situation, the best thing they can do (outside of resolving it through treatment and surgery) and often the first step is to soothe the psyche - identify with the aspect that best matches themselves (internally).

Therefore, when you (or someone) disagrees with that, and makes that disagreement known, you are rejecting that identification, that part of themselves. It is their existence. This is why comparisons to legs, or Popes, or whatever, fall flat. Because you're right, in those situations, it would not be a denial of that person's existence. But that's because gender dysphoria is so much more critical to a person's existence than that. So much that you or I cannot understand how important that is. I mean, we can try to, but we're never going to be able to. It's like going through trauma - you can sympathise, but empathising - actually walking in that person's shoes, metaphorically speaking - isn't going to happen.

 

[AmazonQueen]

100% comfortable is not exactly the same as acceptance but I get your point.
I don't think you can ever expect that. I can't wrap my head around having sex with another man. That doesn't mean I can't accept gay men for what they are and attribute them respect and equal rights.

I'm 55 years old, I'm not entirely comfortable with a lot of the modern world, but I don't think transgender or other minorities will accept we don't officially persecute you anymore, now please be quiet, and I know damn well I wouldn't if I was them.

 

[AdamCrock]

Let's make theory into practice and start recognizing people the politically correct way
Well if I am politically correct the person on the right of the followin picture is "He Man" and the person on the left is "Below average weight"

Spoiler Gender recognition 101 :

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So what's their "objective ID"?

I don't even want to get into conflating being a man with being a "physically male" until you clarify the above.

Objective ID are things you can use to identify someone objectively --> their observable physical existence. This is different from subjective/self identification, but not necessarily more important (which is more important depends on whether you're doing a medical procedure vs asking someone to choose how they want to live for example).

 

[Zardnaar]

@red_elk - that's what discussion is for. But you seem too worried about being called a transphobe to provide actual specific differences and their relative importance..


You're opening up a breadth of topics that can just as easily be read up on. Especially if you're keeping on repeating "men declaring themselves female". Not only are you re-asserting transphobic talking points, but you're changing the subject while you do so. Regardless, in no specific order:

1. You'd be surprised to understand just how much a person changes when they (physically / medically) transition.
2. You cannot speak for all women when you're clearly either referencing actual transphobes, or people with actual trauma relating to someone with the appearance of a man as a trigger. Which is an incredibly specific theoretical justification to support your point.
3. The rest of your points are basically "should we spend money on a marginalised minority", which uh ideally, yes. Like, this is a no-brainer. Where that money comes from would, again, be a whole other topic.

Well, at the very least, we're getting down into particulars, even if this is a complete loop to however long ago in the thread for me. I'm repeating myself, basically, and while I certainly don't expect folks at this stage to read the whole thread, jumping in to try and prove me wrong requires at least some understanding of what I might have already answered. I'm not saying you should go and do that, simply explaining where I'm at, which informs my reactions some of the time.

Someone's gender is a core aspect of their identity. It is a large part of their mental existence; their psyche. For you and I (presumably, as you don't seem to understand how severe this can be), we align with that, physically and mentally. I am perfectly at ease in being a guy, and having a guy's body. For people not in that situation, the best thing they can do (outside of resolving it through treatment and surgery) and often the first step is to soothe the psyche - identify with the aspect that best matches themselves (internally).

Therefore, when you (or someone) disagrees with that, and makes that disagreement known, you are rejecting that identification, that part of themselves. It is their existence. This is why comparisons to legs, or Popes, or whatever, fall flat. Because you're right, in those situations, it would not be a denial of that person's existence. But that's because gender dysphoria is so much more critical to a person's existence than that. So much that you or I cannot understand how important that is. I mean, we can try to, but we're never going to be able to. It's like going through trauma - you can sympathise, but empathising - actually walking in that person's shoes, metaphorically speaking - isn't going to happen.

It's cosmetic surgery at the end of the day though resources are scarce.

Turns out the public system covers a limited amount.

https://www.health.govt.nz/your-hea...anders/health-care-transgender-new-zealanders

I guess they made a budget.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm 55 years old, I'm not entirely comfortable with a lot of the modern world, but I don't think transgender or other minorities will accept we don't officially perscute you anymore, now please be quiet, and I know damn well I wouldn't if I was them.

Cispeople just don't know what it's like to constantly havery your gender be challenged, to have people who don't even know you speak with authority about what you are as if somehow they know.

Unless the person speaking is my doctor, they should keep their mouth shut and not go on about how I'm "biologically this" because that is the equivalent of throwing out a slur to me and to other transpeople.

Although I am sure others will tell me how it isn't, but I frankly couldn't care what they think because they don't have to endure the dysphoria that is made worse by misgendering and deadnaming, they don't have to live in a state of anxiety because someone might clock them and reveal who you are to others.

 

[red_elk]

@red_elk - that's what discussion is for. But you seem too worried about being called a transphobe to provide actual specific differences and their relative importance..

I've given the actual differences and the cases when they are important for people - everything related to sexual relationships.

 

[Zardnaar]

Cispeople just don't know what it's like to constantly havery your gender be challenged, to have people who don't even know you speak with authority about what you are as if somehow they know.

It's a free world, you can claim anything you want.

I thought we're supposed to respect people's sexuality these days and I'm not pan sexual.

If you lived here the public health system might help you, IDK where in the world you are I assume the USA.

No one's denying your right to exist, or your right to express yourself however you see fit.

The trans forums I read were split on calling people transphobic if cis men wouldn't date them.

If someone wants kids or that option of having kids isn't that a deal breaker? The surgery is superficial yes, point blank can you have children after the surgery?

IDK what your preferences are that's on you, calling me transphobic over kids is on you though. No matter how good the transition is kids are not gonna happen is it?

 

[Senethro]

itt non-biologists tell us all about biological reality

i bet some of them even believe species are real!

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Why are you making an issue concerning transpeople about yourself and Cispeople Zardnaar?

Also trans men can give birth and trans woman (depending on hrt though) can also impregnate.

 

[Arwon]

4. Trans women pre surgery competing in female sports.

5. Post op trans women competing in female sports.

They've had trans weight lifters and cyclists here winning events and the females are not happy.

It's in these situations I draw the line. I don't think it's fair a man can declear they're female take hormones and expect to be allowed to compete in female sports

Think whatever wrong stuff you want, but you're a long way behind international policy, expert opinion and science here.

IOC policy has been in place since 2015 and other sports like cricket, ice hockey and Australian Football are following on similar lines, which is that a period of hormone therapy (12 months I think) brings teams brings transwomen to equivalent ciswoman norms as long as said therapy is maintained from that point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, at the very least, we're getting down into particulars, even if this is a complete loop to however long ago in the thread for me. I'm repeating myself, basically, and while I certainly don't expect folks at this stage to read the whole thread, jumping in to try and prove me wrong requires at least some understanding of what I might have already answered. I'm not saying you should go and do that, simply explaining where I'm at, which informs my reactions some of the time.

I've always been talking about particulars. I would say it's actually a trait of my posting style to zoom in on minutiae and bypass the bigger picture (much to the annoyance of other posters sometimes). From my point of view this whole exchange has revolved around trying to reign you in and get you to stick to the particulars I was talking about, instead of going off on tangents and conflating other ideas or just outright claiming I'd said things I never said. It's also been me repeating myself endlessly in order to get you to recognise what I've actually said, not what you think I've said. So if you're finally recognising the particulars in question then that's great, but I certainly don't need to go back and read anything myself.

Someone's gender is a core aspect of their identity. It is a large part of their mental existence; their psyche. For you and I (presumably, as you don't seem to understand how severe this can be), we align with that, physically and mentally. I am perfectly at ease in being a guy, and having a guy's body. For people not in that situation, the best thing they can do (outside of resolving it through treatment and surgery) and often the first step is to soothe the psyche - identify with the aspect that best matches themselves (internally).

Therefore, when you (or someone) disagrees with that, and makes that disagreement known, you are rejecting that identification, that part of themselves. It is their existence. This is why comparisons to legs, or Popes, or whatever, fall flat. Because you're right, in those situations, it would not be a denial of that person's existence. But that's because gender dysphoria is so much more critical to a person's existence than that. So much that you or I cannot understand how important that is. I mean, we can try to, but we're never going to be able to. It's like going through trauma - you can sympathise, but empathising - actually walking in that person's shoes, metaphorically speaking - isn't going to happen.

At best all this argues is that, for them, it can feel like someone is denying their existence. That still doesn't validate the statement "you are denying my existence". And certainly not the statement "you are denying their existence" from a third party.

And also that kind of affirms what I said before doesn't it?

It could also be argued that if your sense of your own existence hinges so strongly on other people around you reinforcing a particular belief about yourself, then that... well that could indicate that there's some doubt about it even in your own mind couldn't it?

Now "doubt" might not have been the right way of phrasing that, but certainly it would seem like there is or could be some degree of insecurity with that self-identification. And if it's the case that even the person in question has that insecurity, then expecting (if not demanding) 100% affirmation from non-invested third parties is a rather unrealistic expectation is it not?

 

[Gorbles]

@Manfred Belheim

When the important part is the feeling of that feeling (as per the impact on mental and physical health as described in this thread, repeatedly), then there is no salient difference between feeling that your existence is being invalidated, and your existence in some measurable way being invalidated.

How would you measure such a thing in a way that would satisfy what you're asking for, here? What are the metrics? This might help explain why you consider this to be such an impossibility.

Objective ID are things you can use to identify someone objectively --> their observable physical existence. This is different from subjective/self identification, but not necessarily more important (which is more important depends on whether you're doing a medical procedure vs asking someone to choose how they want to live for example).

I can understand the dissonance between a chosen gender and an observation of that based purely on physiological similarities, but Akka didn't say that. Akka specifically said it was a biological constatation. Not something that you simply observe as being dissonant (i.e. this person identifies as a woman but I cannot see that myself, which honestly I don't consider to be objective but going strictly by definition I can see why you're making the argument).

We were talking about self-ID as well, explicitly. Akka said being a man or a woman is not subject to self-ID. You seem to be saying it is, but objective ID (whatever that results to in a specific, non-theoretical example) is also a factor.

I don't think your defense applies to their arguments, and despite all I've said to you (and I stand by most of it, the emotive cheap shots were mainly time and place, responding in kind, etc) you're doing your own logic a disservice by trying to.

I've given the actual differences and the cases when they are important for people - everything related to sexual relationships.

So you gave a singular example of genitalia apparently being different, thus demonstrating you have zero idea what that entails for trans folk, or having a relationship with them. I also answered this particular example already. So, any other differences?