If you don’t know where the exact number is and you don’t have a quantitative model to tell you, then why should we buy your argument that “0.5% versus 80% seems pretty clear”?
Why is that any more “clear” or logical than putting the cutoff at, say, 0.1% versus 99%?
If you don’t actually know where or why to draw the line between numbers that make your argument valid and numbers that don’t, why should anyone believe you when you argue that a particular set of numbers falls on one side of the line versus the other?
Yup, really.
Nope, it’s not enough because you have nothing in the way of a consistent model or logical argument for why “the line” puts those particular numbers on that side instead of the other.
Personally, I might think that 0.07% versus 99.6% is required in order to justify ethically requiring somebody to pre-emptively announce their personal status to strangers. You haven’t offered any objective rationale for why one set of numbers is better than another.
Its pretty common in NYC these days. It greatly reduces lawsuits and birth complications are greatly reduced and the doctor can schedule his delivery schedule so get his weekends off.
Of course it is. Just like a large fraction of the aversion to transgender dating is the result of societal norms. And similarly as societal norms shift towards more inclusion, more people will be willing to date transgender and violence against transgender will start to approach normal levels.
There was a famous game designer that had GRS when i was a kid. He regretted it because it didn’t make things better for him. But I have read of people who felt like they were finally alive after GRS so, another risk and burden that comes with being transgender.
Clinical research you say? What scientific clinical research states that it’s not a mental disorder to think you are something you physically are not? You do understand how outlandish this is to even argue that it’s okay and normal to think you are a male when in reality you are a female, vice-versa?
But please, continue to deny and ignore all self-evident biological evidence that supports my stance.
Its super important to me not to have poison ivy in my salads too but I never bother to ask if there is any.
When those facts occur, then I will think ab out it. Right now its less than 0.5% vs. 80%+. We are not asking what would be the correct course in hypothetical worlds. We are asking what is correct in this world.
I never heard of this forum and saw it linked in another forum. I enjoy debating, so I thought I’d make an account and check out this section. It has nothing to do specifically with transgenderism.
Nevertheless, what about my logic is flawed? Could it be the fact that I’m completely ignoring irrelevant emotions that these transgender individuals experience and solely focus on their physical biology? That’s a common one from my experience. Elaborate.
If they apply. I don’t see any sense of their applying.
Because the majority of the population has no significant risk by being forthright. Because the disclosure by the minority does carry significant, real, demonstrable risk to them. And because the 80%+ of the majority does not have disclose personal medical information up-front to everyone who stumbles across their dating profile. Whereas when the transperson reveals it, they presumably only reveal it to their date.
The ethics here are which side has to pre-emptively disclose personal medical information to the population that can make them a much greater chance of being a victim - and which side simply has to write “cisgender only.” Would you like to give me the current list of cisgender men in America murdered in cold blood because of their cisgender identity? Because I can give you the list of transgender persons murdered for their transgender identity.
This whole thing increasingly seems like heel-digging to avoid having to be forthright about bias.
So it’s purely an opinion, with no actual “utilitarian” guideline used in setting the parameter. So utilitarianism in this case means “whatever I want it to be.”
The risk of disclosure is not even nearly equal. Is that fact in dispute?
Because the APA, made up of actual medical researchers and clinicians - as well as numerous other medical bodies around the world - disagree with you.
You made an assertion which you now claim is based on “logic.” The burden is on you to defend your initial assertion in the light of that evidence presented to you. So do it.
Poison ivy would never be part of a normal menu. Whereas transgender persons can and do exist on dating sites.
It’s not reasonable to expect poison ivy, tires, or eye of passenger pigeon on your plate. But it is reasonable to expect that yes, there could be transgender persons on dating sites.
I dont see any need for either side to disclose on a more or less public dating forum.
However, I would think that before or during the first “meet for coffee date” the person who is in the tiny % group needs to disclose. Privately, during a conversation. Not publically.
I wouldn’t expect a person with Tourettes to disclose that in their profile.
And again, you’ve been disproven by the APA link earlier in the thread. Read it. “The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.” Not all transgender persons have such clinically significant distress, and the distress is normally (>90% of the time in our clinic) alleviated or even cured by transition. I have no such distress anymore, so case in point. No distress, no dysphoria, via the link earlier.
Or, on the other side, I have a friend who was assigned female at birth, who identifies as male, and has almost no gender dysphoria. He says that the lack of a penis makes him feel a little impotent, but that he’s basically comfortable with his body. He is lucky in that his body doesn’t look especially feminine. He is half Asian, with Asian facial features, very small breasts and a build that isn’t out of the norm for Asian men. Maybe if he had large breasts and prominent hips, he would have gender dysphoria, there’s no way to know. But he is transgender.
Its pretty simple. The cost of disclosure by 0.5% of the population when they date total strangers is higher than the cost of disclosure by 80%+ of the population when they date total strangers.
Yes and why can’t they make that revelation before the date starts?
Victim by who? The total stranger they are choosing to date? Perhaps a better filter before dating someone would be a better idea if the threat of violence is so prevalent.
No its not. I don’t intend to ever go on a date again in my life. I’m not trying to avoid anything. I have a bias, I doubt very many people in my generation don’t have this bias. I don’t have any hatred in my heart for transgender people, I pity them. In many ways, they drew a bad hand in life and they’re trying to make the best of it.
No, it is an opinion informed by utilitarian principles.
You do know what utilitarianism isn’t a form of math right?
No, I agree, there is more risk to a transgender person who is dating a total stranger revealing their transgender status than there is to someone revealing their desire not to date a transgender person. Non-transgender people will never make that disclosure because it never crosses their mind, they don’t even know that the burden exists.
I was looking for something that about 80% of folks are allergic to and would not be expected. Can you think of another allergen that affects 80% of the population?
As an aside, I reference it a few times but why are transgender folks out there trying to date total strangers? Aren’t they concerned about getting beaten up when their date finds out whenever they happen to tell them (presumably they will tell them at some point). Why not find out before dating?
Right, and an allergen that affects 80% of the population would never be put into food at a restaurant. Perhaps you’d prefer to pick a food that 80% of the population would find “a waste of time”, rather than a food that 80% of the population would be actively harmed by? Maybe something weird like gold flake or lutefisk?
And that is exactly why prior to physical transition a person is supposed to under go counseling. There is, of course, the problem of appropriate, competent, and useful counseling, but that aside, the point is to determine if a person really is transgender or if something else is going on, and to find the most useful means of optimizing the person’s mental health and functioning.
Which does NOT mean automatically moving to hormones and surgery.
What’s important is what works for the individual. If that means no surgery, only some surgery, or something else… that is supposed to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The biggest problem is the portion of the 80% who would use such a revelation as an an excuse for violence, up to and including rape, murder, or both. The assault information for transgender individuals indicates that that group does, indeed, exist.
Based strictly on my own observations over the years…
There are some people for whom being partnered up, even temporarily, is so very important that they feel compelled to either be in a pairing or actively seeking a pairing. Even as a teenager, while I enjoyed dating, I was perfectly happy to spend a weekend, or several weekends in a row, without a date. I did not feel compelled to always have a boyfriend.
Then I lived in a college dorm for awhile. I was amazed at the number of women who felt they HAD TO have a date EVERY Friday AND Saturday, and they lived in fear, actual fear, that would not happen. Those are the people who went to bars and clubs all the time.
Me, I got on with life. I dated a lot less, but since I wasn’t in distress over it no big deal.
Well, if you HAVE TO always have a date lined up you’re probably going to run through your friends and acquaintances pretty quick, after which you’ll have to start looking at strangers.
Then there’s crazy shit like “speed dating”…:rolleyes:
It can reduce the risk to the child. It increases the risk to the mother. But, of course, that’s consistent with so many in our society valuing fetuses over adult women.