No, you haven’t stated it. But your arguments, attitude, and even word choice argue very eloquently for what you have declined to state baldly.
Like this, for example. On the one hand, you mouth empty platitudes about “journeys of self discovery” and how much you support them. And then you turn right around and say that she deserves to be treated like shit, just because she’s different. That is a morally reprehensible attitude, and puts the lie to everything you have said about your open-mindedness and lack of discrimination.
Perhaps if you learned how to express yourself clearly in English, our comprehension would be improved. Sentences like, “I am exploring an idea, and arguing a perspective that enables me to explore that idea from a perspective,” do not help.
And yet, you have not given a single reason not to accept transexuals, except for a bizarre calls for comapassion towards bigots, as if they are the injured party in this situation. If you want support for the Largo board members, give us a better reason to feel sympathy for them besides, “Change is haAAArrrrd!” No shit, change is hard. I can wrap my head around the idea that transexuals don’t deserve to be treated like shit. Interestingly enough, so can the majority of residents of Largo, where Stanton used to work, so it’s not like I’ve gained super liberal compassion powers by living in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, or anything like that. It’s actually a pretty basic calculation: I start with the assumption that people don’t deserve to be treated like shit if they haven’t done anything hurtful to other people. Being transexual is not hurtful to other people. Therefore, there’s no rationale to treat transexuals like shit. If I can figured this out, and most of the other people in the same community as the Largo board can figure this out, why should I have any sympathy at all for the board itself? Why do they get special dispensation from the consequences of their act of free will?
Oh, lovely. The old, “If you’re so tolerant, why don’t you tolerate my bigotry?” defence. Come back when you’ve got some new material, I’m tired of tearing down that particular strawman.
I would hope I have some credibility as a counter-voice to the liberal groupthink which does in fact dominate this board.
The argument you advance above is akin to saying that if you walk down an alley in a bad neighborhood at night, you should expect to be robbed and beaten.
In a sense, of course, this is true.
But when hearing the story of a person robbed and beaten in an alley, should we shrug and say, “Hey, the guy walked down the alley – what did he expect?”
Or should we explore methods of increasing police presence or modifying the way in which we deal with muggings in the justice system?
People are free to react as they please. But as a society, we take measures to encourage some behavior and discourage others. Acceptance of people who are transgendered is not giving in to a lark or a whim on their parts; these people are serious and considered in what they view their gender to be and are willing to undergo extensive counseling, medical treatment, and expense in order to conform their bodies to their self-image.
What is the logic in treating them as pariahs? Sure, some people will do it, regardless. Why should WE join them, or even encourage them? I say the better course is to DISCOURAGE them, to speak out agianst such bigotry, and to try to make the journey of the transgendered less, rather than more, painful.
I absolutely agree with your ability to make up your mind, mswas.
If you had a problem working with Stanton then you could choose to quit. That would be your choice and you would be free to make it. Similarly, if Stanton decided that the bigotry of the workplace were too difficult to bear, she could choose to quit to get away from you.
Similarly, you could choose not to date a M-t-F. That’s an acceptable choice too.
What I do not understand is your insistence that your should get to choose whether a transgendered person is employable or not. If you want to support the idea that social choices come with risks, start with your own, and complete the following sentence:
"I’m intolerant of a minority with whom I work, therefore:
a) I should quit."
b) the minority should be fired."
c) I should learn to adapt."
Darn, can’t edit. Let me just add that the above hypothetical situation applies to anybody that is intolerant, and isn’t intended to assume intolerance on your part, mswas.
So, who defines the “scientifically appropriate” definition of “man” and “woman?” If the answer is, “Some guy on the internet,” then I guess you’re set. On the other hand, if the answer is “scientists working in the relevant field,” then you’re kind of screwed, because they’re mostly on our side of the debate. The one thing neither you nore mswas has been able to address is the fact that we’re using arguments and definitions supported by the majority of the scientific and psychological communities. You are, of course, free to ignore those communities, but if you do, you surrender the right to refer to “scientific categorization” to defend your positions.
You seem to be talking about the obligations of people already involved in some kind of relationship, acquainted with each other’s friends, etc. Yes, I completely agree that once two people are becoming seriously involved in each other’s lives, they have a mutual obligation to discuss important personal issues, and that includes the issue of transgender status.
But remember, what we were talking about was whether transgendered people are obligated to immediately reveal their status as soon as they meet somebody or go on a first date. Which is a very different thing from what you’re talking about now.
(Since having a child has such a huge impact not only on one’s private life but also on one’s public and family life, I would expect that information about having children would come out much earlier than information about such completely private issues as transgender, infertility, etc. Even so, I would not consider that a parent is actually obligated to explain their parental status immediately upon meeting a potential partner.)
Offensive, and non-factual. It’s certainly a fact that this board has a numerical majority (at least among its more active posters) of people who are politically and socially liberal. But claiming that the predominant liberal views expressed here are mere “groupthink” is not a fact but an opinion, and an insulting opinion at that.
So, let me get this straight…“scientists working in the [uncited, unmentioned] relevant field” are "mostly on [y]our [undefined, unexplained] side of the debate? Wow. I had no idea. And backed up by “the [uncited] majority of scientific and psychological communities,” I am simply at a loss for words.
Gosh, when I google “scientific study harvard male female” I only find 1,300,000 potentially, though not necessarily, relevant links. Apparently, only Kinsey , Harvard, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, The New York Times, (and when I remove “harvard” form the search string) PhysOrgForum, CBS News , The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Society for Neuroscience seem to be using these archaic labels.
You are, of course, free to ignore those usages…
My side of the debate is this…if “male” and “female” have scientific basis, for instance, the presence of XX or XY chromosomes, then that should drive the legal and social definition. If use that scientific definition in a discussion and am technically correct to the best of my knowledge, then I see no problem. I’ve also said that I would try not to poke at a transgendered friend by referring to that person with pronouns which upset them, but I do not believe that their personal feelings negate the validity of the scientific term. If any of that is wrong, please fell free to explain why without hyperbole or wild non-facts.
Phlogiston once drove legal and social definitions, too, until we learned that fire was more complicated than that. Genetics, especially vis-a-vis the study of gender expression, is an emerging science. Clinging to a binary definition from 1905 isn’t anywhere close to cutting-edge science.
Usually with definitions like “1. In organisms that reproduce sexually, being the gamete that is smaller and more motile than the other corresponding gamete of the same species (the female gamete). The sperm cells of higher animals and plants are male gametes.
2. Possessing or being a structure that produces only male gametes. The testicles of humans are male reproductive organs. Male flowers possess only stamens and no carpels.” or “1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.”
Of course, Houghton and Mifflin might very well be just to guys on the internet.
Because if we’re going to debate whether a person can or cannot be labeled “male” or “female” it borders on the absurd to consistently bicker without defining that label. I thought that the scientific definition might very well serve as a point to start discussing the meaning of the words.
The trouble is that there are a bunch of different scientific, i.e., biological, characteristics that are used to determine the scientific categories of “male” and “female” as assigned to biological sex. And sometimes those characteristics are inconsistent with each other.
There’s the presence of X and Y chromosomes; there’s the form of the genitals and reproductive system; there’s the amount and type of hormones; there’s the form of the hypothalamus. If these biological characteristics don’t fit neatly into clear sexual dimorphism, or if one characteristic in a particular individual falls into the “male” category while another characteristic in the same individual falls into the “female” category, then how are we supposed to establish a clear biological basis for the definition of “male” and “female”?
And if we don’t even have a 100% reliable scientific basis for the categories “male” and “female” on the biological level, then how are we supposed to establish one for the categories “male” and “female” on the much more abstract and arbitrary social/legal level?
You think men (or women, for that matter) should voluntarily rush blindfold into relationships? You think that they should simply assume from the first date onward that their potential partner doesn’t have any unusual characteristics or unexpected issues? You think it’s okay for them to make arbitrary assumptions about the potential partner’s “normality” and then, if those assumptions turn out to be wrong, blame the potential partner for not revealing everything right away?
Because I can’t agree with that at all. I think it is up to individuals to have a clear idea of what they need to know about potential mates, and when they need to know it, and how involved they are willing to get before they know it. It is not your potential partner’s responsibility to second-guess those things for you.
So, if the scientific definition of “male” is “1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei.” Why is there any need to bring in socio-cultural definitions, rather than defining new terms (or appending tags to the original terms) for the exceptions?
And what does that have to do with whether science has ever been wrong? Being wrong about a process is wholly different than being wrong about what label you apply to a specific set of conditions. XY = male…anything else is Male + some other condition…how is that so hard to agree on?
Miller, Kimstu et. al. Man and Woman have stable definitions. There are biological deviations from these norms that we have words for. You aren’t asking me to accept someone for who they are. You are asking me to define who they are inaccurately. If someone is born half man, half woman, that’s what they are. No amount of genital removal is going to change that. You refer to the hypothalmus as the main arbiter of sexuality. I disagree with that notion. The brain is a routing mechanism for information. That information goes two and from end terminals that have a purpose and a function, in the case of a woman, making her kegels and uterus operate are just some of them. There are many more aspects that make a woman a woman than just singling out organs.
I don’t know anything about the hypothalamus to be honest, but if it follows my limited understanding of neurology then it is meant to route information from certain parts of the body. If a person is born without those organs, but still have the routing mechanism, then I can see how that would be a source of confusion. That does not deny that those organs are part of the system that makes a person what they are. Exalting the routing mechanism or the chromosomal structure is pointless IMO. They are not the whole system.
They are something outside of the norm but that does not deny that there is such a thing as a norm.
It’s not about how they define themselves, it’s about how WE define them. They can define themselves as a squirrel trapped in a human’s body for all I care, but when I see them, I see a human.
You will not find your scientific definition in Houghton and Mifflin.
It is becoming increasingly clear from current studies that sex and sexual behavior is not dimorphic, that is, a binary condition of 0 or 1, yes or no, male or female, do or do not, etc.
What you are attempting to do is akin to classifying “day” and “night” based on the visibility of the sun and moon. However, sometimes the moon isn’t visible at night, and sometimes it hangs in the sky with the sun, and sometimes there is an eclipse. Even defining “day” on the visibility of the sun depends on one’s altitude and local obstructions.
Our language, whence we get the binary terms for “male” and “female,” is hundreds of thousands of years old, and it is insufficient for describing what we increasingly understand to be a non-binary condition. Why insist upon cramming everybody into two mutually exclusive words?
My intention was not to give insult – but I don’t withdraw my observation. I don’t contend that each and every expression of liberal views here results from groupthink, as distinguished from an individual’s independent arrival at conclusions that support liberal premises, but I do contend that it’s a non-trivial proportion of the bandwidth.
In any event, surely you’ll concede that my comment was tangential to the main point of this particular thread, and for the purposes of this thread, I can rephrase it as: To the extent that there is “liberal groupthink” here, I would imagine it’s clear that I am not part of it. My support for the social recognition of the transgendered cannot fairly be attributed to SDMB groupthink, if such groupthink exists.
You think men (or women, for that matter) should voluntarily rush blindfold into relationships? You think that they should simply assume from the first date onward that their potential partner doesn’t have any unusual characteristics or unexpected issues? You think it’s okay for them to make arbitrary assumptions about the potential partner’s “normality” and then, if those assumptions turn out to be wrong, blame the potential partner for not revealing everything right away?