Do we have a responsibility to accept transgendered individuals?

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
I’m thinking it’s an ick factor similar to what comes up in discussions about homosexuality. I can somewhat understand it, because unlike gay people, if you have a personal issue with transgender people, it’s “harder” to keep them out of your personal life. After all, the chick you pick up at a bar could’ve once been a dude.
[/quote]

It’s not an ick factor. It’s a matter of knowing the identity of the person you have a relationship with.

[quoteThere’s even some similarities to the arguments. “Man was biologically formed to have sex with woman, and that’s the end of it” <-> “A transgender is biologically born a man/woman, and that’s the end of it.” “Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman” <-> “A man is defined as having XY chromosomes.”[/QUOTE]

I just don’t agree with the alteration of definitions.

162

Would you call a hermaphrodite who had surgery to make themselves male a man?

163

[QUOTE=mswas]
Because people are not widgets they have properties that are relevant to their identity.
[/QUOTE]

And the person is telling you their identity and their “properties” when they say they are a man or woman.

So, once again, on what grounds do you need to differentiate between Kimstu as a woman and Sally as a woman? They’ve both told you they’re women.

164

[QUOTE=mswas]
It’s not an ick factor. It’s a matter of knowing the identity of the person you have a relationship with.
[/quote]
Thing is, they’re giving you their identity when they present themselves as a woman and call themselves Sally. The sex change has as little to do with their current identity as the appendix surgery I had when I was a baby. Sally has an identity. It’s just not one you like.

Tough. That’s language. The definitions of words change all the time.

165

[QUOTE=mswas]
Right, and I don’t agree with you.
[/QUOTE]

About what? That the definition of words change? That the definition of these specific words is changing? Or just that they should change? Because the first is inarguable, the second is amply demonstrated by the existence of this thread in the first place, and the third is entirely irrelevant. The definition is changing, and there’s fuck-all you can do to stop it.

Also unlike widgets, they have the right to forge their own identity, and not be trapped by ones imposed on them by outside agencies. I might have more respect for you in this argument if your position on how to define transexuals was consistent with the principles which you claim to operate under, but at every turn, you contradict yourself.

For example:

You claim that you reject definitions based on materialism, then insist on defining gender in purely biological terms.

You claim to support people who push boundaries, then bitterly defend anyone who attacks them for pushing those boundaries.

You claim that you’d respect transexuals enough to use terms they prefer, the consistently refer to them as “trannies” and insist on using the wrong pronoun when discussing the particulars of the Stanton case.

You claim that, as a “self-actualized” person, you are allowed to define the reality you live in, but refuse to grant others the same permission to identify themselves as they wish.

You claim that you are opposed to the altering of definitions, but freely alter the definitions of other words to suit whatever argument you happen to be making at the time.

This constant mass of contradictions makes it very hard to believe that you are taking your position out of principle or reason, and not simply an unexpressed (and possibly unconscious) dislike of transexuals.

166

[QUOTE=guppy]
Would you call a hermaphrodite who had surgery to make themselves male a man?
[/QUOTE]

Coulter.

(I know, I know, that in no way helps the discussion or my credibility, but I had to)

167

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
Thing is, they’re giving you their identity when they present themselves as a woman and call themselves Sally. The sex change has as little to do with their current identity as the appendix surgery I had when I was a baby. Sally has an identity. It’s just not one you like.Tough. That’s language. The definitions of words change all the time.
[/QUOTE]

You say that as though you aren’t stating an extreme minority position.

Miller Sorry, the word woman has a meaning. If they don’t fit it, it doesn’t matter what they say to me. I’m not going to present a case, but if they are not a woman they are not a woman. That’s just how it goes. The attempt to remove all meaning from gender specific pronouns notwithstanding.

They can define themselves however they want. What you are discussing here is **MY **right to define **THEM **however I want.

I don’t agree with you that the definition of the word is changing as you think it is. I live in a pretty liberal milieu and gender dimorphia is still considered an oddity.

In short, I find yours and everyone else’s imperious proclamations to be uncommpelling.

168

Speaking of contradictions, I find it laughable that mswas insists on a new word for “transgender woman who has no uterus and can’t provide me a child,” but does not insist on a new word for “cisgender woman who has no uterus and can’t provide me a child” and “cisgender woman who has a uterus and won’t provide me a child.” If you’re all about precision, why this focus on transgender only?

If you want a very precise and personal definition, mswas, a definition with which nobody can argue, use “people I’d fuck” and “people I wouldn’t fuck.” That gets right down to the heart of the matter: that, for various reasons, you claim you’d prefer one kind of sexual partner over another.

Now that we’ve started to perform uterine transplants he’s going to need a whole new category of “transgender w/ uterus” subdivisions.

169

[QUOTE=mswas]
They can define themselves however they want. What you are discussing here is **MY **right to define **THEM **however I want.
[/quote]

You can define them however you want, yes. I’m laughing at your inconsistency when you claim to advocate precision.

And I thought what we were discussing was the rights of Stanton’s co-workers to get her fired because they couldn’t handle it.

170

[QUOTE=Fish]
Speaking of contradictions, I find it laughable that mswas insists on a new word for “transgender woman who has no uterus and can’t provide me a child,” but does not insist on a new word for “cisgender woman who has no uterus and can’t provide me a child” and “cisgender woman who has a uterus and won’t provide me a child.” If you’re all about precision, why this focus on transgender only?

If you want a very precise and personal definition, mswas, a definition with which nobody can argue, use “people I’d fuck” and “people I wouldn’t fuck.” That gets right down to the heart of the matter: that, for various reasons, you claim you’d prefer one kind of sexual partner over another.

Now that we’ve started to perform uterine transplants he’s going to need a whole new category of “transgender w/ uterus” subdivisions.
[/QUOTE]

Fish, tell you what. When they can make a transgender that can get knocked up without subsequent medical alterations after their successful sex-change operation, with eggs that consist of that person’s own DNA complete with Mitochondria and everything, then I’ll consider them a woman.

My position however much you’d like to spin it to appeal to emotion some more is entirely cohesive. A woman with an abnormality of the uterus is a woman with an abnormality of the uterus in the same way that a man with an abnormality of the hypothalamus is a man with an abnormality of the hypothalamus. The terms ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ refer to an ideal normal state. A leather lined hole in your crotch doesn’t make you a woman. The normative definitions of the words are not what should be adapted to, but explanations of the variations that can occur are what should be adapted to. A man with epilepsy is a man with epilepsy in the same way that a man with gender dimorphia is a man with gender dimorphia. We already have a word ‘hermaphrodite’ for people who are closer to the middle than they are to either end.

Sure, I’ll concede that there is usefulness in being nice to them and accepting them as useful members of society, it’s compassionate and I don’t believe creating pariahs is useful. However, I disagree with you that the position you are arguing is the status quo, or even anywhere NEAR the status quo.

171

[QUOTE=Fish]
You can define them however you want, yes. I’m laughing at your inconsistency when you claim to advocate precision.

And I thought what we were discussing was the rights of Stanton’s co-workers to get her fired because they couldn’t handle it.
[/QUOTE]

If you have a non-ad hominem to add to that discussion, I will gladly revisit it with you. I am all for well-reasoned arguments that aren’t simply epithets couched within the framework of GD etiquette.

172

Quite apart from the transgender issue, gender identity doesn’t mean as much any more with the advent of online communities. In games that provide avatars such as MMOGs, or even just online boards with naught but usernames, a man can present himself as a woman if he chooses. I could call myself UglyBetty and portray myself as a woman here or anywhere online, and if I’m good enough at it, the people I interact with will know me and think of me as female. Sure, there may be a guy sitting at the computer, but for all you really need to know to interact with that persona, it’s a woman.

Also, mswas, you quote me in full, with two completely separate statements, and say that I’m stating an extreme minority opinion. Which are you referring to? That the identity a person presents to you is all that you need to care about, and what gender they were before doesn’t matter, or that definitions of words change as a natural function of language?

If it’s the former, being a minority opinion doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Care to explain why the defective organs that got removed from Sally and myself have any bearing at all on our current identities?

173

BayleDamon The one about gender identity not mattering. I agree with you that words morph over time. I just don’t think that the word is morphing quite the way the consensus here seems to think, at least outside of a liberal minority.

174

[QUOTE=mswas]
The terms ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ refer to an ideal normal state.
[/quote]

In your mind, yes — and you are free to define somebody else however you want.

However, your personal definition doesn’t entitle you to deprive someone of their job.

175

[QUOTE=mswas]
If you have a non-ad hominem to add to that discussion, I will gladly revisit it with you. I am all for well-reasoned arguments that aren’t simply epithets couched within the framework of GD etiquette.
[/QUOTE]

Pointing out your own logical inconsistencies is now an ad hominem?

I would be glad to have a well-reasoned discussion with you if you’d stop trying to change the definition of words.

176

[QUOTE=Fish]
Pointing out your own logical inconsistencies is now an ad hominem?
[/quote]

You failed to do such a thing. They are only inconsistent because they do not conform to your wishes. All of the examples of abnormal anatomy were judged by the same criteria.

I am not the one trying to change them. You are.

Arguing what you wish to be the norm as though it IS the norm does not make it the norm. Sure you might ultimately change people’s perception with such a tactic, but most people still accept the definitions I am using, which is the definitions of the words that have existed for far longer than sex-change operations.

177

I don’t think anybody’s suggesting for a moment that there are really no differences between transgendered women and bio-female (Fish, “cisgender”? It’s daring but I like it!) women. Or that people should not be permitted to “recognize” those differences in circumstances where the differences are really relevant.

All we’re maintaining is that for ordinary everyday usage, it makes most sense at present to stick to the two familiar, universally understood simple binary categories “Man/Male” and “Woman/Female”, and let individuals choose which category they belong in according to how they self-identify.

I mean, in practical terms it would hardly be feasible to implement your proposed alternative of using multiple additional gender categories for everyday social classification, even if it would be more precise. Here are just a few problems with it I can think of off the top of my head:

  1. How many additional categories would there have to be? Already we’ve run across “Androgyne”, “Transgendered Woman”, “Transgendered Man” (and I assume we would need “Pre-Op” and “Post-Op” versions of both of those), and some folks also use “Intersexual”. Getting into genetic definitions, there’s “XXY Woman”, “XXY Man”, and a variety of others. Who gets to decide which categories are selected, what they’re called, and where to draw the line in adding more new categories. This is already unworkably complicated.

  2. Will all these different categories really be granted parallel status with the existing ones of “Man” and “Woman”? That is, do they get their own public restrooms, their own honorifics, their own clothing styles, etc.? If not, how do we decide which ones are supposed to use the women’s room instead of the men’s room, which ones will be called “Mr.” instead of “Ms.”, which ones will wear neckties and which ones pantyhose, etc. etc. etc.?

  3. What will we call the juvenile members of these categories? Are “boy” and “girl” reserved exclusively for juvenile versions of “man” and “woman”? Do members of other categories get called, say, “Little Androgyne” or “XXY Boy”? If not, how do we decide which juveniles get called “boys” and which get called “girls”?

And so on and so on and so on. How can anybody seriously argue that “precision” in social usage of gender categories is important enough to make it worth while to sort through this nomenclatural can of worms?

I say, screw it. Let’s just go on using the familiar, oversimplistic categories of “Man” and “Woman”, and let’s let individuals choose which category they belong in according to how they self-identify. Simple, easy, fair.

178

[QUOTE=mswas]
Fish, tell you what. When they can make a transgender that can get knocked up without subsequent medical alterations after their successful sex-change operation, with eggs that consist of that person’s own DNA complete with Mitochondria and everything, then I’ll consider them a woman.

My position however much you’d like to spin it to appeal to emotion some more is entirely cohesive. A woman with an abnormality of the uterus is a woman with an abnormality of the uterus in the same way that a man with an abnormality of the hypothalamus is a man with an abnormality of the hypothalamus. The terms ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ refer to an ideal normal state. A leather lined hole in your crotch doesn’t make you a woman. The normative definitions of the words are not what should be adapted to, but explanations of the variations that can occur are what should be adapted to. A man with epilepsy is a man with epilepsy in the same way that a man with gender dimorphia is a man with gender dimorphia. We already have a word ‘hermaphrodite’ for people who are closer to the middle than they are to either end.

Sure, I’ll concede that there is usefulness in being nice to them and accepting them as useful members of society, it’s compassionate and I don’t believe creating pariahs is useful. However, I disagree with you that the position you are arguing is the status quo, or even anywhere NEAR the status quo.
[/QUOTE]
But, just earlier you said (several times) that it wasn’t about physical attributes. A couple of samples:

Yet for the last several posts, all you’ve done is repeat the various internal physical organs that you wish to use as the sum definition of gender. What happened to that non-materialist position of yours? I guess your position may not be as “entirely cohesive” as you claim?

179

[QUOTE=mswas]
The terms ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ refer to an ideal normal state.
[/QUOTE]

I’m more and more convinced that a great deal of what’s wrong with the world can be traced back to the writings of Plato.

180

And since you evidently can’t answer the question I’ve asked twice now, I’ll reiterate your ever-changing goalposts for the studio audience. Below are the (paraphrased) reasons that mswas has presented for why people should be allowed (without negative consequences) to refuse to accept transgendered individuals in their preferred identity:

“the need of the many” to be comfortable in their bigotry
causes social disruption
it’s a luxury (meaning non-essential for survival)
it’s a luxury (meaning expensive)
missed work (for medical procedures)
reduced productivity (due to co-workers’ distress)
some comparison with alcoholism that I never quite got
the need for social norms
it’s a free will choice (therefore doesn’t deserve consideration)
life experience (different for natal men/women than transgenders)
social fracturing (in general, possibly increased by transgenderism)
dating (paranoid fear of accidentally dating a transgender )
compassion for bigots
mating (paranoid fear of unknowingly marrying a transgender and not being able to have kids)
linguistic stability
“just exploring ideas”
social cohesion (possibly diminished by transgenderism)
defining personal reality (allowed for mswas only)
linguistic consensus (only if agrees with mswas)
social conformity (more needed)
defining norms needed (by exclusion)
defining general reality (allowed for mswas only)
maintaining social norms required
language precision
some vague and unexplained “identity” “properties” difference between natals/transgenders
whining because people don’t agree with him (multiple times throughout)

As each concept is debunked, he moves to the next. You might notice a certain repetitive tendency in the concepts used.

Let’s watch for the next posts, to see if he finds any new ideas!