And what would you have us do, sit back and only allow the “transsexuals are sick/mentally ill/icky” voices to speak without response? Ignoring the ignorance won’t make it go away. Do you think that allowing prejudice to rampage unchecked is going to make things better? Ignorance leads to prejudice which leads to fear, and while prejudice is socially annoying at best and dehumanizing at worst, fear leads to violence. Violence of which transsexuals are almost exclusively on the receiving end.
Transsexuals cannot be ghettoized into a “separate but equal” group or swept under the rug, they must be embraced and recognized and respected as being firmly and forever part of the multifaceted human experience on this planet.
But until that happens yes the subject is going to come up repeatedly, and some folks are going to feel like they are under a microscope. It happened to lesbians and gays before (and is still happening), it happened to blacks, it happened to Jews, shoot, it even happened to the Irish and Italians. Any minority group which differs enough from the majority is going to be on the bad end of the stick with this. It’s unfortunate but it’s reality - for now.
Don’t assume any one person here on this message board does not already have the full experience and knowledge of living transsexual; few posters here put their gender identity in their .sig.
I felt compelled to register to comment on this. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. Even doctors who are trained in this sort of thing may not know the gender of the child until chromosome tests are done. Likewise, due hormone levels in the womb, mistakes and other irregularities in the womb, a person can be born with an ambiguous brain. We identify with one gender or another: boys will associate with boys and girls will associate with girls, just like some people want to have sex with boys and some people want to have sex with girls.
Transgendered individuals, like homosexuals, appear to be born with their “disease.” Yes, it is abnormal and evolutionarily disadvantageous. But the preferred and only treatment among transexuals is to change their bodies which may OR MAY NOT include turning their penises into vaginas.
Narrow clarification: actually eunuchs are mentioned in the Bible: in fact Jesus of Nazareth opines on the subject:
[QUOTE=Matthew 10-12]
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
[/QUOTE]
So there are three types of eunuchs, those who were born that way, those who had it done to them and… those who voluntarily snipped themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Eunuchs were vilified at the time, and Jesus chose to put those who transitioned to eunuchhood in the best possible light. He added that he recognized that this point would be difficult to accept by many.
Later, the passage was interpreted as an endorsement of priestly celibacy. But it doesn’t say that now, does it?
"and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” has always been interpreted as celibacy not as MtF
Also, eunuchs in that part of the world (unlike in China) kept their penises and no change in gender/sex was perceived as having happened (even penis-less were still considered men).
I re-read my post, and i had cut it down so that it lost some essential parts. For that I apologise, as my ire was not really directed at you, a supporter and someone who has done more than their fair share of the research and try to educate those who are uneducable due to wilful ignorance on their part.
So here’s my stance, about the only positive outcome that arguing against these bigots may do is to shame or embarrass them into shutting up. That is a noble endeavour in itself, but the expense of energy required to at least publicly silence them can lead to burnout. I’ve done a lot of Trans 101 for the past 16 years or so, and the people who are truly willing to learn and amenable to change their viewpoints often do. But there are the special ones who have some tenacious grip on a narrow and personally sensible worldview where they hold the scales of right and wrong. These people are legion, and that is scary. 2
012 is an especially deadly year for transwomen, particularly those of colour. I agree that education should be widespread, but pretending that the tans-deniers’ bigotry, however thinly veiled in intellectual honesty, is a valid position, is damaging, too. It’s a form of enabling, ironically much like they may argue that you are enabling us to live out our little fantasies in their world. You have much more patience and optimism than I. After encountering someone who invalidates my very being, that which I know as myself, that which has no other “proof” than my own experience which is dismissed as anecdotal, after all that, my response is simply: “wow, that’s pretty fucked up.”
You, and those like you, are welcome in my life because you want to know more, are open to the evidence of the lived experience, and have not attempted to dictate my reality through invalidation. They? They are not welcome, and the sound of my identity on their lips is poison to my heart. That was a bit teenage poetry-y, but pretty close to truth. (BTW, I have used othering language for them because they have othered me, and I therefor assume that they must identify as something other than me, and who am I to deny their self-categorisation.)
At some point, we have to get over the strangeness of the “other” to move forward, and create a society more closely aligned to equality. We are none of us non-human, and there are apparently 7 Billion variants on that theme, many currently doing their best to make more. I’m so tired of being heralded as something different. Of pointing out that I had severe depression and suicidal thoughts because of a mental illness. No, I was depressed and suicidal because I was denied an authentic life early on, and every step toward an authentic life is one along a gauntlet of harassment and vilification by the kin of those on this list who cannot and will not accept me. To them I address my admonition to leave me and us and anyone else you have some trouble accepting quite alone. Shame on them for heaping psychological and physical harm on us. I don’t ask for compassion, and if acceptance is not enough, then kindly remove yourself from my disturbing presence. But to demonise and defame me and those of similar experience with invalid “reasoning” is simply not acceptable. For too long we have cowered (with notable exceptions), just trying to survive another day and hope to not rock the boat. Yet our reality is ridicule, rape, assault, and murder. That’s not changing except to maybe get worse. So please excuse my curtness while the trolls troll, this “debate” is not academic to us. Yes, transitioning helps many, and so fucking what if a few regret it? Chemotherapy kills a certain percentage of patients, and yet its beneficial outcomes outweigh enough that it is still quite a valid treatment for cancer. I can see transsexuality as a cancer, but not one within, it is without, in the world around us . When we can hide from the cancer, our symptoms fade, and if we are not cured then our disease is in remission.
I think that Measure for Measure was refering to those born as eunuchs being equated with intersex people, and those who were made eunuchs as either having that fate imposed upon them, and thirdly, as in some Native American societies, those who we would consider transgender perform a castration to destroy at least the testicles of M2F individuals. This passage has a long history of varying interpretations. The thought goes that the people of first-century Mediterrenian societies wouldn’t use language we have newly developed to describe the same phenomenon.
Ok. But I’m -er- ignorant and confused. I don’t know who exactly the passage refers to: King James says “Eunuchs”: other translations say “Castrated men”. Throughout history there have been varying motives for the practice. I’m not sure why you say that, but again I’m unfamiliar with this topic.
This is false. Consider The Jesus Seminar’s The Five Gospels (1996). While they agree that: Modern scholars have …tended to understand this passage as an accommodation to the emerging asceticism of the early church. They also say the following: If this saying goes back to Jesus, it is possible that he is undermining the depreciation of yet another marginal group, this time the eunuchs, who were subjected to segregation and devaluation, as were the poor, toll collectors, prostitutes, women generally, and children. Seventy-seven percent of the Fellows of the Seminar agreed with this second interpretation… Serious scholars have argued that the passage was not limited to celibacy.
The bolded words there are variations of eunouchos, which means what it looks like it means, but it also has a verb form which means “castrate.”
[/QUOTE]
He also pointed out something I had overlooked, a few deities at the time (Mithra, Cybelle) required male priests to castrate themselves. So, such a command would not be coming out of left field.
“Ignore it and it will go away” makes some sense in kindergarten when somebody is bullying you. Unfortunately it works a lot less often when you’re trying to get people rights. I’ve used this argument before on gay pride parades, “well, you’re just drawing attention to otherness! That’s not a good way to get people to see you as normal!” It just doesn’t work, if you sit there and let it fester, then people keep thinking the same things. To get acceptance, especially legal acceptance, you really have to be a bit vocal about things.
No, you did have a mental illness. I don’t mean transsexuality, I mean that anybody with severe depression and suicidal thoughts has a mental illness, regardless of its cause. I’m happy you’re better, really, but even if you were understandably suicidal because your entire family was murdered in front of your eyes, suicidal thoughts are still a mental illness.
I’m sorry if the premise of the thread offended you. Know that I said “mental illness” for a reason, it’s not a value judgment, I didn’t say “crazy.” If the best, most successful way to treat it is hormone therapy, or surgery, or using a different pronoun, fine. Do it! And bring out the legislation so these people aren’t socially persecuted for their treatment! Like I said, I’ll never stop supporting trans rights, or trans people or their choices, but on a certain level I do still wonder if it’s a mental illness or not. Again, I know it probably angers you, but it’s not a value judgment, I don’t think you’re better, or worse, or “other” if you have a mental illness. Tons of people have mental illnesses, hell, I have social anxiety, general anxiety, and depression on top of various unclassified self esteem issues. Full disclosure, while I’m not trans, I have a (relatively) minor level of gender/body dysmorphia that I struggle with.
Again, I’m really sorry if starting this thread makes you feel discriminated against, “other”, or uncomfortable, that was not my intent. I’m still trying to sort out my feelings on the issue of whether it should be called a mental illness but know that I’ll never (intentionally) treat a trans person as anything less than a normal human, nor will I ever advocate not allowing a transwoman full legal rights as if they were a cis woman (or same for men).
It was the eloquent, reasoned arguments of transsexuals and their supporters that took me from horrified ignorance to my present stance. I may be cissexual, but I’m a strong believer in treating people with compassion and equality, thus my arguments and posts in this thread. Arguing against the bigots may not impact the bigots much, but it can impact open-minded bystanders and lead to additional allies for your cause.
I completely understand the concept of burn out. If that’s the case, then don’t participate in threads such as these. You are not obligated to march into the trenches of this issue every time the issue comes up. You should back off when that is the best course of action for your own mental health and energy level. As I so often say, if you don’t take care of yourself you can’t take care of anyone else. At this point, if you bow out of the argument there are others to continue the debate.
I’ve been reading this thread with interest. I tend to agree that there is definitely “something” wrong with a person who has a penis and two testicles, but nonetheless believes that he/she is a woman. That being said, I understand the suffering that person must go through in life to cope with this crisis of sexuality. My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person’s incorrect thoughts.
Must transgendered people be given protection in job situations? I can see the “yes” argument, but if you go down that road, we should also protect alcoholics, people with sleep apnea, and overweight people as well.
If I’ve known a man for 30 years as Bob and one day at the job he tells me that he is really Sally Jones, a woman, MUST I legally indulge him/her? If I’m the boss do I have to allow him to use the ladies’ restroom and send emails to her as Ms. Jones? If I use the male pronoun to address him or accidentally call him Bob should he have a right to sue me and the company? (And see, I unintentionally said “him” twice in the last sentence).
I think that the legal protection aspect is what makes this a debate. There is proposed legislation making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered people when many people, even enlightened posters on this board, think it is a mental illness. We are left wondering what is coming down the road that we must accept in society under penalty of law.
My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person’s incorrect thoughts.
[QUOTE]
What exactly are these thoughts? Why are they incorrect?
I believe this is the fallacy of the slippery slope
What you have to legally do depends on your location. In most places, you don’t have to do anything differently until after the sexual reassignment surgery, when Sally is legally certified a woman.
Of course, you could just fire her for being transsexual. They aren’t a protected class in most places. You can walk right up to her desk, say “I’m firing you because you are a transsexual!” and she can’t do anything about it.
When the supreme court ruled segregation unconstitutional, many enlightened people were against it. That didn’t make them right
Because it’s such an inconvenience to everyone else?
Yes, morally and ethically. Legally, it depends on where you live (or if you work for the Feds, I believe Title VII now covers transsexual employees due to court order).
And unlike your examples of alcoholism and sleep apnea, being transsexual should normally not impact job performance nor impact job safety (it may impact job performance in the case of a client-facing job). Depending upon the improved feelings and attitude of the person in transition, as a result of having treatment, it is possible to significantly improve both of those factors.
If they legally change their name and gender marker on their government issued ID, you really have no choice in the matter in a workplace, no matter how inconvenient that is to you. Deliberately and consistently referring to a woman with legal gender markers as “sir” or “Mr” in a workplace environment is the sort of thing which creates a hostile workplace environment and which makes litigating lawyers rub their hands together with glee.
If they are legally female then they use the women’s toilets regardless of which state you are in.
The only question arises for people who are in transition. In that case you can keep referring to them as “Mr. Jones” if you want to be a rude asshole, and in most states you can force a person presenting as a woman in a skirt and heels to use the men’s room. I mean, if the goal is to slyly punish them by making both them and your male employees uncomfortable…Well, I’ll note that transsexual counselors who I have worked with vehemently insist that transwomen presenting en femme use the women’s toilets whenever possible, due to harassment, violence, and even rape which has occurred as a result of them using the men’s toilets while presenting as women.
“Accident” is different from “on purpose.” I can’t imagine any fallout from a simple or innocent accident.
