The above thread inspired me to ask this question.
The way I see it is this. Getting a sex change is the choice of an individual. No matter how weighty it is for them it is still merely a choice that they have made. The decision not to accept this is a choice that another individual may make. So I see no reason that the choice of the transgendered individual should carry more weight than the choice of the unaccepting individual.
In the scenario that the Pit thread is about, a man was fired from a municipal position. The municipality made a decision regarding a socially disruptive behavior.
Something is socially disruptive if the social body has trouble coming to terms with its consequences.
If a person intends to purchase a luxury product that irrevocably alters their identity, why should those who maintained a relationship with the person’s previous identity be forced to come to terms with the person’s new identity if they do not wish to do so?
As the social body gains more information about the underlying reasons for things, we may expect it to alter its behavior.
The social body when Hannibal was shovling elephant poop was, I imagine, not friendly to epileptics. I cannot imagine seizures were treated as medical issues.
I certainly don’t condemn Hannibal and his compatriots for their lack of insight or their cruel exclusion of people with epilepsy. But I would certainly condemn a social group today that made similar choices.
By analogy, today we understand much more about gender as distinguished from sex. We understand medical issues that can create physically intersexed people, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome, and we understand that even wholly apart from detectable physical evidence, there are some people who strongly identify with a gender that does not match their biological sex.
Based on this understanding, I would expect a social group in the Western world today to be accepting, rather than exlcusive, with respect to such an individual.
The ‘social body’ can be an ass. Cases in point: segregation. Women not being allowed to vote.
The ‘social body’ is constituted of people on a bell curve of intellect; most aren’t at the top end. Which means complex ideas of physiology and psychology are hard for them to grok at first. It takes people who are more tolerant and better able to understand what things like gender identity are to lead the way. Sometimes the ‘social body’ has to be dragged along, but eventually most of it gets with the program.
What need does anyone have to disapprove of another human who isn’t causing literal harm to you or anyone else? In fact, how dare they? We’re all flawed and imperfect and need to quit looking for the motes in others’ eyes, I’m thinking.
No, it’s a medical procedure designed to align someone’s outside with his/her inside. Untreated transgenders have a strong tendency towards suicide, among other problems; it’s not like getting a nose job, a matter of simple vanity.
Because the person doing the refusing is a bigot, and therefore evil or a fool.
Like a black person wanting to ride in the front of the bus ?
It’s not a luxury, it’s a medical treatment. And it’s not a change in identity. And they should be forced to come to terms because that’s part of being professional; if it doesn’t affect the job, ignore it.
Should someone be fired if they convert to Mormonism ? Get breast implants ? Marry someone of a different race ? The only question should be : Can they do the job ? If the job was being a male stripper or a male model, you might have a point. For any job that both a man or woman can do, you don’t.
Good question. To what degree are we required to accept socially disruptive behavior? If no one wanted to work with your hypothetical man, should the town keep him in his position to suit an ideological notion of justice? What’s more important the ideal or the proper functioning of the municipality?
Certainly, and it does. Sometimes the disruption of the status quo is something too extreme to adapt to easily. In this case they chose not to adapt to it.
I don’t know what the Carthaginians thought. It is my understanding that it was thought of as the ‘curse of Apollo’, which is why Caesar kept his hidden in Rome.
I would not want an epileptic guarding my flank in battle formation, that’s for certain.
Right, and they have two choices.
Adapt to the situation and live as an intersexed person with the body they were born with, with the social benefits this entails.
Adapt to the situation and live as a transgendered person with a medically altered body and deal with the social repercussions of being a social pioneer.
I don’t see why. Most social groups are not understanding of such a situation, nor does everyone agree that physical attributes are the sum total of a human being.
I have never before heard or seen gender-reassignment surgery referred to as a “luxury product.” And I still don’t get how anybody could think of it as one. Luxury products, almost by definition, do not alter the purchaser’s identity (though many purchasers seem to hope otherwise).
Nitpick: As Colleen McCullough pointed out in the afterword to one of her “Masters of Rome” novels, Julius Caesar almost certainly did not have epilepsy. We know this because we know Caesar remained in full command of his mental and physical faculties until he was assassinated at the age of 55. Before the development of modern anti-seizure medications, epilepsy almost always caused severe brain damage at a much younger age than that.
We also know Caesar was not born by “cesarian section,” because it is a matter of historical record that his mother, the lady Aurelia, lived to a ripe old age. No woman survived a c-section in those days. The name derives from a Roman law called the “lex Caesarea” (probably named for some other statesman from the family of the Julii Caesares), providing that a woman dying in the late stages of pregnancy could be cut open in a last-ditch effort to save the baby.
Here’s my problem with focusing on the biological model of gender identity, sexual orientation, et al.
It means that we “excuse” the not normal because it’s “not their fault”. We still get to judge it as weird and wrong and bad, but we can excuse it anyway. In my perfect reality, it wouldn’t matter if it was a medical condition, a psychological condition, an acting out at an overly repressive mother, or a mere whim. What someone wants to do to their own body with or without a consenting partner(s) is absolutely none of my business, no matter WHY they want to do it. There’s nothing wrong or bad about it.
Other than that, I agree with you. Times change, and we now know that there’s really nothing to fear from transexuals. They aren’t any more likely to be antisocial, commit crimes or diddle our children than anyone else. They are more likely to harm themselves if we refuse them treatment and acceptance. This lack of harm to others and increased harm to themselves is why we should accept them, not because they can’t help being weird.
In response to Why Not. I would offer a clarification.
I think that a person has every right to be transgendered. The scope of this discussion is whether or not I have a social obligation to accept it.
I think it’s sort of weird, but I would not treat a transgendered person badly consciously. I have met many transgendered people and felt no real pull toward them, thus did not establish a relationship.
This is a very good point. If we are going to object to someone being fired from their job for having a sex change operation, then we must equally object to someone being fired from their job for not having a sex change operation. Good thing you were here to alert us to this potential hypocrisy!
I disagree with your definition of “socially disruptive.” Coming into work drunk and puking on the boss’s desk is socially disruptive, and grounds for firing. Coming into work in a dress is not socially disruptive. It may very well make others in the office uncomfortable or distressed. That is their problem, not the problem of the person in a dress. If they can’t handle it, then they are the ones being socially disruptive, and deserve to be reprimanded for their behavior. The person in the dress does not, in any way, deserve reprimand for altering something about themselves that has no effect on anyone else in their work enviroment.
Calling a sex change operation a “luxury product” belies an almost total lack of knowledge of what the operation consists of, and of the medical condition that makes such an operation necessary.
That aside, no, a person shouldn’t be “forced” to come to terms with the person’s new identity. If they do not like that person’s new identity, they are free to avoid that person in social situations. If they cannot tolerate being around that person in a professional enviroment, they are free to leave that job and seek employment elsewhere. At no point should they be “forced” to “come to terms” with the person’s new identity. However, they can be expected to suck it up and do their fucking job, and not worry about what their coworker is hiding in his or her pants. In the linked thread, Stanton appears completely capable of doing this. It is his coworkers who have the problem, and the onus for resolving that problem properly resides with them: they can get over it, or they can find jobs that better suit their prejudices.
Nobody is required to accept socially disruptive behavior at all as far as social contexts are concerned. If you disapprove of gender reassignment, you are perfectly free to avoid all personal social interaction with transsexuals in your social life.
Whether you are entitled to insist on doing so in a workplace context is another matter entirely. I would argue that you have no moral grounds for demanding the resignation or firing of a transgendered individual who is performing competently at a job that is not dependent on gender identity in any way.
Whether or not your distrust of the combat capabilities of a person with epilepsy is valid, it’s irrelevant to the situation discussed in the OP. An epileptic seizure does obviously impair a person’s ability to perform a job, especially a job involving military combat.
But gender identity has nothing to do with one’s ability to function at a municipal desk job like City Manager. So there is no valid job-related reason to demand that a person competently performing such a job should be fired just for being transgendered.
Fine. And if the rest of the “social body” also has genuinely negative feelings about transgender, then the transgendered will have to suffer the natural consequences of having few relationships within the “social body” and little social support.
That’s all the social punishment for transgender that the “social body” is entitled to hand out, IMO. Sabotaging the jobs of competent workers whose gender identities are irrelevant to their job performance is unjust and unacceptable.
Would you, then, define (for one example) psychiatric medication as a “luxury”? After all, no one is going to die as a direct result of not being able to get a Prozac perscription. How about cosmetic surgery to repair scarring or birth defects? Is having reconstructive surgery after a fire so your face doesn’t look like beef jerky a “luxury?”
Which is outside the scope of the thread that spawned this one, which was about wether or not you have a professional obligation to accept the transgendered.
But you have no objections when someone else treats them badly?
You define “luxury items” as “not essential to survival,” eh? What if you learned that the pre-transition suicide rate of transsexuals was between 20% and 50%, and the post-transition suicide rate was comparable to near-normal levels?
I’d say it’s pretty essential to survival, but hey, you’d probably say suicide is a choice too.
The whole OP stinks of Moral Majority: we can tell you what to be, and if you don’t like it, we’ll exile you from society and you can live on scraps. We had that kind of world for centuries and I think it’s time to try something else.
This is a huge issue within the feminist community, in regards to allowing male-born women into spaces that are designated as “Woman-Only”, such as the Michigan Women’s Music Festival.
On one hand, a MTF is a person who identifies so strongly as a woman that s/he has cut off what most men consider to be an essential piece of equipment. Should not that person then be accepted by the community of women? Some MTFs are truly dedicated to feminism and to working for the people of women, why should they be excluded from it?
On the other hand, a MTF has been raised as male, and treated by society as male for many years. They are often husbands and fathers. They have no experience of what it is like to grow up as a girl, to go through puberty as a young woman, to feel the pressures and obstacles and burdends and joys of womanhood. “Woman” is an oppressed class, and for a member of the oppressor class to demand to be accepted as one of the oppressed is a further oppression. It would be like if a white person got their skin tattooed dark and demanded to be accepted as Black by the African-American community.
Me, I’m ambivilant on the issue.
(And please don’t start arguing about whether women-only spaces should exist at all. This controversy assumes that they should.)
Who’s this “we”? Us here on the message board? Gee, that applies to the Tampa Bay city commission.
It doesn’t apply to most people I know here in Idaho, either. I personally was pretty much totally unaware of transgendered people until I started hearing about them from webcomics, of all things. And a lot of people here don’t even read webcomics. Are we all therefore justified and morally excused in the rather likely event that we would totally ostracize a transgendered person?
