Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Why do the transgender people want to waste the time and take the risk? They don't improve their chances of finding someone if they don't make it clear up front, and they do increase their chances of betting beat up, or worse.
According to what I've heard from trans people, making it clear "up front" to someone who amounts to a stranger carries a risk of its own, and based on some of their experiences, that risk can be greater than waiting to make sure they trust their new acquaintance (and not engaging in any intimate activities with them before revealing their trans status).
  #752  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:33 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
A large majority of people know that they will never be "at least somewhat" into a romantic relationship with a transgender person. So there is no "to begin with".

The dishonest part, to the extent that there is a part, is the pretense that being transgender isn't an absolute deal-breaker. And then going out with someone as if there was any chance of a relationship, when there isn't any such chance. Why do the transgender people want to waste the time and take the risk? They don't improve their chances of finding someone if they don't make it clear up front, and they do increase their chances of betting beat up, or worse.

Regards,
Shodan
The answer we have heard so far has basically been to increase their dating pool. After all we are talking about transwomen dating total strangers and not telling them you are transgender. Total strangers.

It may be that the pool of people who are affirmatively willing to date transwomen are frequently fetishists, bucket listers, sexual explorers, etc. And frankly, who wants to be object of a fetish in a long term relationship.

Perhaps they hope beyond hope that the nice guy that they have been going out with for the last few weeks will be able to look past the transgender status and remember how they connect and how they feel about each other. They are hoping that the 80%+ people who have an aversion to dating transgender are really only expressing fear of the unknown rather than a more fundamental aversion to dating someone who was born a man.

I hope they can find happiness even if it isn't a June and Ward Cleaver brand of happiness.
  #753  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:37 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sure, because he was a rich Prince.

If he just turned out to be a poor, married guy, I doubt she would have gone through with it.

Besides, you didn't answer the question. Do you feel her anger was justified?
That was a joke, not a serious example. I figured my reply made it clear. If you really want to discuss the movie, I'd be happy to in a CS thread.
  #754  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:46 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That was a joke, not a serious example. I figured my reply made it clear. If you really want to discuss the movie, I'd be happy to in a CS thread.
No, it was not clear. Easy for you to clear up though: Do you feel her anger was justified?
  #755  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
No, it was not clear. Easy for you to clear up though: Do you feel her anger was justified?
Sorry, but I'm worried that continuing to talk about a movie that I mentioned entirely as a joke would be a hijack. Apologies for bringing it up in the first place, just trying to lighten the mood. I don't actually think that that fictional example was relevant at all, it was just a little joke.
  #756  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:56 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sorry, but I'm worried that continuing to talk about a movie that I mentioned entirely as a joke would be a hijack. Apologies for bringing it up in the first place, just trying to lighten the mood. I don't actually think that that fictional example was relevant at all, it was just a little joke.
And that's what I thought you'd say. Thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
  #757  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:08 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
And that's what I thought you'd say. Thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
You're very welcome. Hopefully my joke made you laugh a little bit in these difficult times.
  #758  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:21 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're very welcome. Hopefully my joke made you laugh a little bit in these difficult times.
I laugh every day!
  #759  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:56 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The dishonest part, to the extent that there is a part, is the pretense that being transgender isn't an absolute deal-breaker. And then going out with someone as if there was any chance of a relationship, when there isn't any such chance. Why do the transgender people want to waste the time and take the risk?
Leaving aside the desperation of a segment of the transgender community for ANY sort of relationship....

Because a non-zero number of people with a kneejerk reaction of "no way!" to the idea of a transgender date, with an image of a stereotype of a "man in a dress" in the media, might change their minds if they spend time with and get to know a post-op transwoman who can pass.

If transwomen don't take chances most of them will never have a relationship that most of the rest of the world takes for granted. Why does anyone take a risk? Because the perceived potential pay-off with success seems worth the risk.
  #760  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:14 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
According to what I've heard from trans people, making it clear "up front" to someone who amounts to a stranger carries a risk of its own, and based on some of their experiences, that risk can be greater than waiting to make sure they trust their new acquaintance (and not engaging in any intimate activities with them before revealing their trans status).
Transgender people need to decide which is the greater risk - putting "I'm transgender" in their dating profile, or going on dates with people who don't know they are transgender and might, unjustifiably, react badly. As well as wasting time dating people with whom there is absolutely no possibility of a romantic relationship.

Regards,
Shodan
  #761  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:26 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Because a non-zero number of people with a kneejerk reaction of "no way!" to the idea of a transgender date, with an image of a stereotype of a "man in a dress" in the media, might change their minds if they spend time with and get to know a post-op transwoman who can pass.
Or, they might beat the shit out of them.

It's a question of what reaction is more likely, and if the risk of one is worth the risk of the other.

Regards,
Shodan
  #762  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:38 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,089
Yes, true.

But if you're choices are between self-imposed isolation and the next best thing to solitary confinement and going out in the world in hopes of human contact albeit with a risk of violence... a surprisingly high number of people in general (not just transgender) will choose the latter option.

I'm sure transgender people try to asses the risk of coming out to people they encounter. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they get it right.
  #763  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:48 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes they are. They are saying that they can be forgiven for their dishonesty because honesty puts their life at risk. That is literally one of maybe 4 arguments being made for why dishonesty is OK in this case.
Do you understand the distinction between "That action is dishonest, but that's okay," and "That action is not dishonest?"
  #764  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:49 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Transgender people need to decide which is the greater risk - putting "I'm transgender" in their dating profile, or going on dates with people who don't know they are transgender and might, unjustifiably, react badly. As well as wasting time dating people with whom there is absolutely no possibility of a romantic relationship.
Which goes back to iiiandyiiii's list of potential turnoffs and/or hot topics, including those relating to race, religion, sexual interest/fetishes, medical and criminal records, (other) body modifications and so forth.

It used to be that the whole point of the first date was to find out whether the two people involved were compatible.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #765  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Transgender people need to decide which is the greater risk - putting "I'm transgender" in their dating profile, or going on dates with people who don't know they are transgender and might, unjustifiably, react badly.
Right, and transgender people who are dating have been making this choice, and continue to, based on their own experiences and inclinations.

Quote:
As well as wasting time dating people with whom there is absolutely no possibility of a romantic relationship.

Regards,
Shodan
This one applies to literally everyone who has ever dated, whether online or otherwise. This is always a possibility, or more likely a certainty (I went on dates with many, many decent but still no-possibility-of-a-romantic-relationship folks before I met my wife). I'm sure many of them thought the same of me, and probably wished that I had stated whatever no-go characteristic about myself that was unacceptable on my profile so that they wouldn't have wasted their time.
  #766  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:17 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This one applies to literally everyone who has ever dated, whether online or otherwise. This is always a possibility, or more likely a certainty (I went on dates with many, many decent but still no-possibility-of-a-romantic-relationship folks before I met my wife).
You are missing the point.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random cisgender woman: low. There could be all kinds of disqualifying circumstances or deal-breaker.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random transgender woman: zero. There is always a deal-breaker, by definition.

Regards,
Shodan
  #767  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:20 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You are missing the point.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random cisgender woman: low. There could be all kinds of disqualifying circumstances or deal-breaker.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random transgender woman: zero. There is always a deal-breaker, by definition.

Regards,
Shodan
...for you. Other people feel differently.
  #768  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
...for you. Other people feel differently.
Yes, there are some people that feel differently. Maybe one day, science will come up with a way for those people to identify themselves in dating profiles so transgender people would know who is open to it.
  #769  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:04 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, there are some people that feel differently. Maybe one day, science will come up with a way for those people to identify themselves in dating profiles so transgender people would know who is open to it.

You win the Internet!
  #770  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:28 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You are missing the point.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random cisgender woman: low. There could be all kinds of disqualifying circumstances or deal-breaker.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random transgender woman: zero. There is always a deal-breaker, by definition.

Regards,
Shodan
Chance of a relationship with any random non-smoking man: low. There could be all kinds of disqualifying circumstances or deal-breaker.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random man who smokes: zero. There is always a deal-breaker, by definition.

Is a smoker dishonest if he doesn't say that on his profile? (Assume he want explicitly asked.) What if he doesn't smoke before dates, and "passes" as a non-smoker?
  #771  
Old 12-07-2017, 06:45 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Chance of a relationship with any random non-smoking man: low. There could be all kinds of disqualifying circumstances or deal-breaker.

Chance of a romantic relationship with any random man who smokes: zero. There is always a deal-breaker, by definition.

Is a smoker dishonest if he doesn't say that on his profile? (Assume he want explicitly asked.) What if he doesn't smoke before dates, and "passes" as a non-smoker?

That's a good question actually. Smoking has an even bigger impact on one's partner's health than their transgender status.
  #772  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:44 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Is a smoker dishonest if he doesn't say that on his profile? (Assume he want explicitly asked.) What if he doesn't smoke before dates, and "passes" as a non-smoker?
What do you mean for "want" there? "wasn't" or "was"?
  #773  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:03 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,239
Sorry, "wasn't".

If someone is explicitly asked "are you X", and they say " I am not X" when they are, I think that's dishonest. I relevant comparison is "what if no one asked?"

I don't know what percentage of non-smokers won't date smokers, but I bet it's high. (And if I were on a dating site, my profile would say "non-smoker. Of course, it would probably also say "seeking non-smoker", but hey...")
  #774  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Sorry, "wasn't".

If someone is explicitly asked "are you X", and they say " I am not X" when they are, I think that's dishonest. I relevant comparison is "what if no one asked?"

I don't know what percentage of non-smokers won't date smokers, but I bet it's high. (And if I were on a dating site, my profile would say "non-smoker. Of course, it would probably also say "seeking non-smoker", but hey...")
That's cool. But do you think that asking someone "Do you smoke?" is as offensive as "Are you transgender?"

Last edited by manson1972; 12-07-2017 at 08:16 PM. Reason: added "do"
  #775  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:51 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, there are some people that feel differently. Maybe one day, science will come up with a way for those people to identify themselves in dating profiles so transgender people would know who is open to it.
I know, right?
  #776  
Old 12-08-2017, 07:37 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's cool. But do you think that asking someone "Do you smoke?" is as offensive as "Are you transgender?"
No. That's among the reasons I don't think trans people should be required to answer that question before they get a chance to meet a person, such as during a coffee date in a public place.
  #777  
Old 12-08-2017, 09:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
I know, right?
I don't think he said what you think he said.

He was referring to people who are open to dating transgendered.
  #778  
Old 12-08-2017, 08:42 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
I did mean that people who are open to dating transgender people should put that in the profile. That seems to me a win-win for everyone.
  #779  
Old 12-08-2017, 10:30 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I did mean that people who are open to dating transgender people should put that in the profile. That seems to me a win-win for everyone.
Sure, that was what I thought you meant.
  #780  
Old 12-08-2017, 10:39 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
Sure, that was what I thought you meant.
The emoji at the end of your sentence confuses me too.
  #781  
Old 12-10-2017, 06:02 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The emoji at the end of your sentence confuses me too.
It's fine; there's no disagreement. I think I just read what you wrote thinking a different context.
  #782  
Old 12-11-2017, 08:39 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
It's fine; there's no disagreement. I think I just read what you wrote thinking a different context.
Ok, cool.
  #783  
Old 12-11-2017, 01:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
If the transgendered were mentally ill, why would the U.S. military tell them that they can enlist?

Win!

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-11-2017 at 01:56 PM.
  #784  
Old 12-11-2017, 10:53 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If the transgendered were mentally ill, why would the U.S. military tell them that they can enlist?

Win!
The article says
Quote:
... the new guidelines mean the Pentagon can disqualify potential recruits with gender dysphoria, a history of medical treatments associated with gender transition and those who underwent reconstruction. But such recruits are allowed in if a medical provider certifies they've been clinically stable in the preferred sex for 18 months and are free of significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas.

Transgender individuals receiving hormone therapy also must be stable on their medication for 18 months.

The requirements make it challenging for a transgender recruit to pass.
Not really *that* challenging. Every single transgender person I personally know who was forced out of the military would meet those guidelines. I could pass that, except I'm too old and too sick to be in the military even if I was cisgender.

It's interesting that the military appears to be giving a giant middle finger to Trump.
  #785  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:39 PM
Zeke N. Destroi Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,087
Yes, they are.

If someone said that their arm wasn't really part of their body would you indulge them and allow them to have it hacked off? I assume no.

But if their entire body is alien to them then they are just misaligned? Bullshit.

Most of them are severely mentally ill and indulging that illness does them as much good as telling a paranoid schizophrenic that aliens have actually put implants into them that the CIA monitors on the constant.

But it is their right to pursue their delusions and they should be protected against discrimination no different than anyone else. They are human beings and they deserve to retain, and pursue, their dignity and personal sovereignty by whatever means they consider requisite.

People that indulge their 6 year-old kids in this delusion, on the other hand, ought to be jailed and their kids ought to be placed in care no different than other child abusers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If the transgendered were mentally ill, why would the U.S. military tell them that they can enlist?

Win!
Because the American army (like others) is having trouble convincing enough people to risk bullets for shit treatment and shit pay that they've "lowered the bar" in order to be able to meet targets.

I promise you that if enough non-trans people wanted to kill or be killed for dubious objectives then trans folks would be out on their collective asses.

Win!
  #786  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:56 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Yes, they are.

If someone said that their arm wasn't really part of their body would you indulge them and allow them to have it hacked off? I assume no.
If someone posted that and it was their first post to a four page thread, would we all assume they hadn't read the thread before posting?
  #787  
Old 12-12-2017, 04:02 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 12,094
I'm curious, Zeke; you say "most of them are severely mentally ill"; who, to you, are the people who aren't?
  #788  
Old 12-12-2017, 04:03 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Because the American army (like others) is having trouble convincing enough people to risk bullets for shit treatment and shit pay that they've "lowered the bar" in order to be able to meet targets.
Opponents to transgender service claim that there's "too few" of them to matter, so how can this "lowering the bar" as you put it make any difference?

You also are entirely ignorant of the many brave transgender troops who have served and are currently serving. Among my friends lists are combat veterans injured many times over, officers who led large forces of troops into battle in Gulf War 1 and 2, one who was injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, one who was a Chief Petty Officer and served in Vietnam, etc. All four branches plus Coast Guard are represented among my friends, who served with honor and courage, some for more than 25 years.

But you just shit all over them by claiming their service and that of those like them was due to "lowering the bar."
  #789  
Old 12-12-2017, 04:10 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
If someone posted that and it was their first post to a four page thread, would we all assume they hadn't read the thread before posting?
Oh no, you misjudge him entirely. He's actually a learned scholar on this subject with unparalleled qualifications and experience beyond compare, who has been sitting and contemplating what to write for *days.* He's thought about it, discussed it in open community fora, composed slam poetry about it, took a long walk in the woods and prayed on it, and then...well, took a literary power dump on the thread.
  #790  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Yes, they are.

If someone said that their arm wasn't really part of their body would you indulge them and allow them to have it hacked off? I assume no.

But if their entire body is alien to them then they are just misaligned? Bullshit.
Okay, let's indulge this absurdity.

For one thing, just whacking off an arm is going to severely impact a person's life. You're getting rid of a major body part, and your ability to function is going to be diminished.

But who is being harmed by transitioning to the opposite sex? Nobody. Even a sex change operation -- basically you're just swapping one set of parts for another. They're not harming you, or themselves. If this makes a person happy, why do you give a shit?

Seriously, this has no impact on me whatsoever. I'll be honest and say I don't know if I could date a transguy. (From what I understand, bottom surgery for FTMs isn't usually as common as the other way around.) But Jesus, why are people so obsessed with the whole thing? Trans people don't have cooties. Even if it IS a mental illness, obviously the best way to treat it is for a person to transition.


(And nobody just lets a child transition -- you don't just pass them drugs and have at it. There's usually some very extensive counseling and examinations. I don't think six-year-olds are on drugs. Even if all you're doing amounts to letting the kid play dress up -- who cares? It's not permanent at this point)
  #791  
Old 12-12-2017, 07:19 PM
Zeke N. Destroi Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Vietnam veterans also have a higher suicide rate. Does your roommate think they are all mentally ill also?
I don't know about their roommate, but I do - not all of them but a goodly number. Or are you unaware of the numerous, well-documented benefits that wars tend to confer upon their participants?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold View Post
I'm curious, Zeke; you say "most of them are severely mentally ill"; who, to you, are the people who aren't?
Fair question. I guess I see it as a sort of a continuum. There are degrees. Would I say that a chronically depressed person is mentally ill? Yes. Would I say that the one who is utterly bedridden and unable to face even the most basic of daily tasks is more severely mentally ill than the one who is able to "fake it" even though each moment is difficult.

And I am not suggesting that any who identify as such should "fake it" but rather that those who feel the need to undergo entire body and life transformations are severely afflicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
Opponents to transgender service claim that there's "too few" of them to matter, so how can this "lowering the bar" as you put it make any difference?
Lowering the bar was a term used in many of the articles that I linked to. I concede that the term was provocative and I apologize for the implications of using it.

What I meant by that is that the US military is having trouble meeting it's recruitment targets and thus are removing / reducing restrictions on enrollment criteria.

In addition I think you have federal legislation in the States that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity as well as Supreme Court rulings (though as I understand it the Supreme Court is considering a case relevant to this discussion so that may, sadly, change.)

What I said was in specific response to some monkey saying he'd somehow "[won]" something by asking why the military is now willing to accept trans-gendered people. I posited that he reason might be because they can't be as picky as they once were due to the reduced number of people willing to take a bullet for a questionable cause.

Quote:
You also are entirely ignorant of the many brave transgender troops who have served and are currently serving.
In as much as I'm unaware of the precise numbers yes, I am ignorant. I'm certainly not ignorant as to their existence. Nor do I object to it. I can't speak to their individual bravery but I can't do that for any soldier. I'm sure there are heroes and I'm sure there are non-heroes.

Again, I apologize for the implication that those who identify as trans-gendered are intrinsically unfit for or incapable of serving and acting in combat.

Quote:
Among my friends lists are combat veterans injured many times over, officers who led large forces of troops into battle in Gulf War 1 and 2, one who was injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, one who was a Chief Petty Officer and served in Vietnam, etc. All four branches plus Coast Guard are represented among my friends, who served with honor and courage, some for more than 25 years.
With all due respect there are a fair number of people that can make the same and similar claims. I'm sure that all of your friends served with distinction - but I fail to see how they are, in any meaningful way, different than other soldiers, air people, navy people.

Quote:
But you just shit all over them by claiming their service and that of those like them was due to "lowering the bar."
I did no such thing and I think it is a pretty punk move to say I did.

I'm sorry for using that term. I see now that one could infer that I was implying that the only reason trans-people are being allowed in is the "lowered bar" that allows for their deficiency. That is not what I meant at all.

But I certainly never "shit" on anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
Oh no, you misjudge him entirely. He's actually a learned scholar on this subject with unparalleled qualifications and experience...
Which I have undoubtedly claimed to be throughout.

Quote:
...beyond compare, who has been sitting and contemplating what to write for *days.* He's thought about it, discussed it in open community fora, composed slam poetry about it, took a long walk in the woods and prayed on it, and then...well, took a literary power dump on the thread.
Wow

Last edited by Zeke N. Destroi; 12-12-2017 at 07:24 PM.
  #792  
Old 12-12-2017, 08:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,809
Look at it this way: throughout history, women disguised themselves as men in order to fight in wars. Obviously not all of them were trans -- some just wanted to fight, some wanted to join their husbands and/or their lovers, etc. But some of them were.

And a good many of them were pretty kickass.
  #793  
Old 12-12-2017, 08:15 PM
Zeke N. Destroi Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Okay, let's indulge this absurdity.

For one thing, just whacking off an arm is going to severely impact a person's life. You're getting rid of a major body part, and your ability to function is going to be diminished
But not to them. They feel they have gotten rid of something that was wrong and needed changing.

Quote:
But who is being harmed by transitioning to the opposite sex? Nobody.
You are right. No one.

Quote:
Even a sex change operation -- basically you're just swapping one set of parts for another. They're not harming you, or themselves. If this makes a person happy, why do you give a shit?
In real life I pretty much don't. But the internet tends to make everyone feel that they ought to weigh in on everything and I guess I'm no exception.

Even on the internet I pretty much don't. The question was asked and I answered and gave my reasons. I do believe that trans-people are mentally ill. That doesn't mean that I think there is anything "wrong" with being trans anymore than I think there is anything "wrong" with being depressed or schizo or take your pick.

So long as they, as individuals, do no harm then they, as individuals, are free to do whatever the fuck they want.

Quote:
S...But Jesus, why are people so obsessed with the whole thing? Trans people don't have cooties. Even if it IS a mental illness, obviously the best way to treat it is for a person to transition..."

I couldn't agree with you more.


(And nobody just lets a child transition -- you don't just pass them drugs and have at it. There's usually some very extensive counseling and examinations. I don't think six-year-olds are on drugs. Even if all you're doing amounts to letting the kid play dress up -- who cares? It's not permanent at this point)
[url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/] I grant that saying 6 was maybe hyperbole/url] but yes, once puberty blockers are used the results are irreversible.

And being as how no one can meaningfully explain "gender" or why some people age-out of the dysphoria I think extreme caution is mandated.

If you, as an adult, decide you want/need to do whatever the fuck - you go ahead.

But when a pre-pubescent kid makes a life-altering decision it is up to the parents to stop that shit.

I'm not talking a kid with cancer deciding she's had enough and wants to die now rather than six months from now and wants to forego treatment.

Keep in mind that at 11 kids aren't allowed to decide who they fuck but you'd have me believe they are competent to determine that they have the wrong gender?

And NO I do not advocate 11 year olds being allowed to fuck.

There is no empirical science to support it and, as such, it oughtn't be allowed. Isn't that the scientific standard - empirical evidence?
  #794  
Old 12-12-2017, 08:45 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
. . . Keep in mind that at 11 kids aren't allowed to decide who they fuck but you'd have me believe they are competent to determine that they have the wrong gender? . . .
No, the doctors who examine them are competent to determine that.
  #795  
Old 12-12-2017, 09:03 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Lowering the bar was a term used in many of the articles that I linked to. I concede that the term was provocative and I apologize for the implications of using it.

...

Again, I apologize for the implication that those who identify as trans-gendered are intrinsically unfit for or incapable of serving and acting in combat.

...

I did no such thing and I think it is a pretty punk move to say I did.

I'm sorry for using that term. I see now that one could infer that I was implying that the only reason trans-people are being allowed in is the "lowered bar" that allows for their deficiency. That is not what I meant at all.
It seems logically inconsistent to admit to having posted something you thrice admitted was wrong, and then bristle at people's reaction to your wrongdoing.
  #796  
Old 12-12-2017, 09:13 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
[url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/] I grant that saying 6 was maybe hyperbole/url] but yes, once puberty blockers are used the results are irreversible.
You found one article which states there could be risks to blockers, and then authoritatively state that "the results are irreversible." You do understand that WPATH and many other major medical guidelines back the use of the blockers, right? And that the blockers, even some formulations did have some risks, also provide significant psychological relief? The many physicians I work with have read the research on the risks, and read the research on the benefits. Frontline is not a medical journal, nor is it peer-reviewed consensus of the medical community.

You entered the thread with inflammatory language about "lowering the bar" on transgender troops (which you admitted thrice), you admit to using hyperbole about 6-year-olds (again, already hashed over to death and not factually correct), and you refer to transgender corrective plastic surgery in terms of having things "hacked off."

Can you imagine what sort of person that makes you look like? Like a person who does not do any research into a topic you seem very passionate about, and who is also disgusted by people like me. That's how your posts are making you look.
  #797  
Old 12-13-2017, 12:32 AM
Zeke N. Destroi Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
No, the doctors who examine them are competent to determine that.
really, you want to talk about doctors blessings as empirical? Fine, look at where the anti-vax movement got it's origins, check out how the opiod crisis got it's start. Fucking check out Doctor Oz. Tell me that because some doctors okayed it that it means it is fine.

How about the doctors that thought thalidomide was cool? Or how about the multitudes that thought that guys that wanted to fuck other guys was crazy.

You can't rely on "doctors" to support your argument when many doctors have made - and are continuing to make - mistakes based on information that is other than empirical.

Here's a challenge for you. Show me brainscans of a person born XY that correspond to to those of someone born XX or XX to XY.

Provide any empirical evidence for transgenderism that is demonstrable outside of anecdote. Surely if there is a fundamental difference between the male and female brain this can be seen in comparisons between scans of cisnormative and noncisnormative children? I'm sure there is a wealth of evidence - provide some.

Or does transgenderism only manifest later in life? Fine, show proof.

According to science it is demonstrable or not. Or, I guess, it falls into the "We really don't know category. What does science say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
It seems logically inconsistent to admit to having posted something you thrice admitted was wrong, and then bristle at people's reaction to your wrongdoing.
Not at all. You are looking for offense where none exists. I apologized for the poor choice of words. I acknowledged that trans-folk are likely to be as good and dutiful service-people as any other.

I have no problem with trans-folks None.

I absolutely believe that it is a mental illness and I absolutely believe that trans-folk are inherently equal to absolutely everyone else.

You accuse me of wrongdoing. What wrongdoing have I done? Seriously?

My belief that it is a mental illness is a wrongdoing? Okay. What effect? Have I once suggested that it is "wrong"? Have I advocated against trans right? No? Have I, even once, given a hint that I am anti-trans? No? So where's your fucking problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
You found one article which states there could be risks to blockers, and then authoritatively state that "the results are irreversible."
No, I picked one out of many. The one I picked was from PBS because I thought that would be reputable enough to not engender arguments about political leaning. Clearly I was wrong.

Tell you what, you tell me what evidence is solid and unbiased that shows it is not irreversible. I mean really, you want to play that "your cite is unreliable" game so can I.

Quote:
You do understand that WPATH and many other major medical guidelines back the use of the blockers, right?
Sure I do. Just as I do the claims that tobacco companies made that smoking is basically harmless. The bias is in the organizations name (check out what the "t" in WPATH stands for. Clearly there is no agenda.

Come on! You are supposed to be a fucking scientist but you throw up stuff that, in any other context, you'd shoot down the equivalent.

Quote:
And that the blockers, even some formulations did have some risks, also provide significant psychological relief?
Great, then you should have no problem coming up with cites from non-allied journals or bodies that substantiate that claim. You know, neutral third parties and such.

Quote:
The many physicians I work with have read the research on the risks, and read the research on the benefits. Frontline is not a medical journal, nor is it peer-reviewed consensus of the medical community.
Sure. Show me a reputable, non-allied, cite that agrees that life-altering therapy ought to be delivered to pre-pubescent kids and that such therapy is reversible.

Should be easy right?

Quote:
You entered the thread with inflammatory language about "lowering the bar" on transgender troops (which you admitted thrice),
Somewhat disingenuous but I'll play along. Yup, I admitted that I used a term that came up multiple times in the link I provided. I acknowledged my error and apologized for it each time you brought it up. As I am doing now.

One more time - for the cheap seats - I MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT FORSEEING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT CHOICE OF WORDS!!! I'M SORRY, I WAS WRONG!!!

Now, can we get past that? Or do I have to reiterate when I reply to your next post?

Quote:
you admit to using hyperbole about 6-year-olds (again, already hashed over to death and not factually correct), and you refer to transgender corrective plastic surgery in terms of having things "hacked off."
Yes, I did both. But fine [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3683633/It-worth-risk-Parents-six-year-old-transgender-boy-defend-decision-speak-publicly-son-s-transition-one-year-sharing-story.html] here is a cite for you.[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3683633/It-worth-risk-Parents-six-year-old-transgender-boy-defend-decision-speak-publicly-son-s-transition-one-year-sharing-story.html[/url] There you go. The kid said she was a he when she was two years old and the parents went with it.

Years of therapy they underwent. I'd be curious about what the literature says about the efficacy of such therapy on children of that age. Please provide cites when you tell me that this is recognized as useful?

Don't forget that many people (Doctors even) bought into the Satanic Panic so please provide something empirical and supported that demonstrates that I'm not wrong in thinking that these parents are fucked.

Their report about how their kid is doing is irrelevant. You are a scientist, as such you know that anecdote doesn't equal data... right?

Quote:
Can you imagine what sort of person that makes you look like?
I don't know... I suppose I look like someone that expressed an opinion on a message board. Why? What do I look like?

Quote:
Like a person who does not do any research into a topic you seem very passionate about....
What passion I have about this topic is derived from the fact that I think that transgenderism has become a cause celebre since Jenner. I think that because of Jenner (and the Kardashian connection) transgenderism has become disproportionately prominent. And I think that it has lead to an acceptance that has potentially gone too far in as much as children are being allowed to make life altering decisions because their parents want to be uber-progressive.

Now, seriously, you have accused me of some heinous shit. I defy you to find one instance of me saying anything against the transgendered. Honestly, I'm asking you to find one instance in which I have attacked the transgendered.

Quote:
who is also disgusted by people like me
You know, I had written a bunch about the two trans-people I've known and then I realized that there was no point. I've got my memories of them and there is no reason to use them as defense.

Quote:
That's how your posts are making you look.
No, see what you are doing is demonizing me because you perceive a meaningful disconnect. There isn't one. It is a matter of perception.

I perceive transgendered people as people - albeit mentally ill - but that in no way mean that I perceive transgendered people as lesser or inferior or freakish. I see transgendered people as people.

You folk ought to be able to live your lives and do what you want to do - no different than anyone else. It is wrong if you are persecuted. It is wrong if you are attacked.

It is simply wrong that you folks get fucked with. Period.

But to accuse me of shitting on you or being disgusted by you is both demonstrably wrong and counter-productive.

In the end it comes down to, regardless of whether I think trans-people are mentally ill or not, transpeople are deserving of the same rights, priveleges and opportunities as everyone else.

Now you can take it, leave it or stuff it up your ass -I don't much care. But I'll be fucked if I'll take terms like "shit upon" and "disgusted" without expressing my ire.

Be you man, woman or whatever, had you characterized my statements in that way to my face I'd fucking drop you.

Last edited by Zeke N. Destroi; 12-13-2017 at 12:37 AM.
  #798  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:11 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,357
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke N. Destroi View Post
Now you can take it, leave it or stuff it up your ass -I don't much care. But I'll be fucked if I'll take terms like "shit upon" and "disgusted" without expressing my ire.

Be you man, woman or whatever, had you characterized my statements in that way to my face I'd fucking drop you.
The first paragraph is over the line for this forum, and the second paragraph is over the line anywhere on the boards. This is a warning for personal insults and threats.

[/moderating]
  #799  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:18 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,206
I wonder how transgender people feel about being labelled noncisgendered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #800  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:51 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I wonder how transgender people feel about being labelled noncisgendered.
I've used it. I don't specifically identify as transgender (long story) but I'm also among those who are not cisgender. I doubt many transgender people would object to "non-cisgender" if randomly applied by someone.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017