Why? Serious question.
That’s not what you said, but hey, if you’re changing to that, cool.
Which brings us to the next question: so fuckin’ what? I mean, you’ve tried to set up a different series of steps they should take, i.e., steps that you don’t require of cisgender folks trying to use the bathroom, and steps that you’ve deliberately crafted to try to make impossible for trans folks to accomplish.
When you set up separate, more difficult, conditions for a minority group to access the facilities and services that the majority group can access without jumping through any hoops, that’s discrimination.
My criteria are this: when a person goes into the women’s restroom, I ask them to behave themselves in there. It doesn’t matter whether they’re cisgender or transgender. I’ll ask folks who identify as men not to go in there except for work-related purposes. Easy peasy.
I will then ask you to behave like a helicopter by shutting the fuck up, and if you comply and, like a helicopter, stop demanding any sort of treatment whatsoever, we’ll be golden. Fair enough?
And even that’s generous of me, because–and this is the key difference between you and transgendered folk–you’re not talking in good faith. Your entire analogy depends on your deliberately not telling the truth. And that’s disanalogous.
Ok, your example is…remember that college degree you had to get to become a teacher? Well, I guess it’s been a while, because your example…is absolutely worthless. Also historically meaningless - women weren’t demanding to be drafted during the Vietnam war when it mattered.
And, uh, they voluntarily avoid most of the dangerous jobs they aren’t being blocked from entering. You know, truck driving and oil rigs and logging and so on. I’m sure it’s all organized discrimination by the “Patriarchy”. If you’ll excuse me, our monthly meeting is coming up and I need to attend.
Why should I have to do a little dance or whatever to appease you?
On the SDMB, discussions about being trans ultimately wind up talking about mental illness, mind/body mismatch, “fixing” things, fMRI scans, and so on. This view has rapidly fallen out of favor with the majority of trans people (it seems to me), so it’s always a culture shock that non-trans folk still talk in these terms.
I’ve mentioned before that I think it’s a mistake to focus on what it means to “be” a man or a woman. I think it’s a valid philosophical question (and there’s been a lot of literature written on it), but the layperson typically asks the question if not in bad faith, than with a conspicuous political motive. That’s why we don’t entertain the attack helicopter question, as a general rule. Anyway, I don’t focus on the “isness” of things, because it’s much more important for me, and much more understandable for others, to tell you what I desire and how I wish to be treated.
What I’m getting at is that if you want to “identify” as an attack helicopter, go for it. Round up a whole bunch of your fellow copters and talk to your representatives in Congress. Sit your family down and tell them. Talk about it with your HR department. Tell me what sorts of employment opportunities you end up with. Maybe consider cutting ties with everyone and starting your life over as an attack helicopter. Discuss medical changes with your doctor. Try to find a surgeon who will work with you to implant a rotor on your back. You’d be like Lili Elbe. How groundbreaking! I mean, she died from a uterine transplant, but you gotta break a few eggs. I really feel for you. I know how it feels to be driven underground (driven in the air?), and as an attack helicopter, you have an increased risk of physical assault. Anyway, tell me how long you last, and realize that if I had to “detransition”, I’d probably kill myself.
How are those strategies working against SamuelA?
The current problem the “trans-phobes” have is with people who haven’t made these difficult and costly changes getting to enjoy various privileges given to those who have. Also, I would like to get some favorable treatment when I apply to a job with google, so it sounds like in the present environment I need to apply as a gay M->F transexual. All I need to do is check the right boxes on a form and I’ll be an under-represented minority they would be glad to have!
Also, I am tired of losing at sports, so I think I’d like to compete in the Olympics as a woman. Though to be fair, that wouldn’t give me enough of an advantage, but maybe I’d make it to tryouts.
My final comment - us “rotors” don’t need to worry about getting attacked once we get the bill authorizing us to be armed with scaled down-helicopter grade armaments at all times. I won’t need to be worried about getting attacked once my rotary chaingun is installed.
And since analogies seem to be difficult for the average poster here: what I *mean *is, the transphobe’s position is that for the average woman using a bathroom, she apparently would feel unsafe if imposing, dangerous looking men were also allowed to use it.
And, in the current environment, we’ve agreed that anyone is whatever gender they feel like, today. For any appearance or past gender.
Maybe this feeling isn’t a real danger.
In the same way, general members of the public would feel unsafe if, in respect of my feelings that I am a helicopter, I get to have a scaled down gatling gun, fully functional, that fires pistol caliber bullets, under my arm at all times.
Even if this feeling isn’t a real danger and incidences of mass shootings where “rotors” engage a target without orders from higher up are rare.
You’re demonstrably arguing in bad faith. If you wanted to, you could check that box. Nobody is stopping your ass from doing so. But you don’t check that box. Why not?
No you wouldn’t.
This is so tragically stupid. Helicopters have no human rights. At the point where you’re asking to be stripped of your human rights, every other absurdity you spout is irrelevant.
You seem to think your posts are clever.
Christ almighty.
Huh. I mean, it’s about the dumbest analogy we’ve seen around these parts since washing machines were getting married, but I’m not sure you can blame the “average poster” for that. You, unlike a helicopter, need to take responsibility for your choices.
How’s yours?
I wouldn’t check the box because I abhore dishonesty.
The helicopter analogy is simply to point out that giving “rotors” the ability to carry fully automatic weapons all of the time is an example of helping one group but causing a perceived danger in another. (maybe most rotors won’t hit the master arm switch and mow down a crowd of people, but they could)
The “bathroom bills” are to address a perceived danger with allowing men in a restroom for women.
As an analogy an exact match is unneeded. I know I’m clever and don’t need external validation.
Do you now.
Stipulating that, what do you hypothesize is preventing enormous masses of cis folk from engaging in the scurrilous plan you imagine? Is it just that you’re the first person who’s ever thought of it?
I’m glad you know you’re clever, because that analogy is goddamned awful. It fails on the most basic level, and you’ve yet to acknowledge that. Beyond that fundamental failure, it also doesn’t work on ANY level. A trans woman going into the ladies’ room is not the same thing as a person carrying an automatic weapon IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
Analogies don’t need to be perfect, but they also shouldn’t be moldering dog turds either. Seriously, you’re in washing-machine territory here.
I tried a straightforward response to see if your suggestions would work. Got completely ignored.
Your turn.
Because it’s really difficult to fake. But yeah, it totally works if you can pull it off, like the Indian pre-med who decided to pose as African American. Since he had the right skin tone it was just a matter of faking the accent, hairstyle, etc.
Why should my ability to use the women’s restroom depend on me making costly changes to myself? Trans people aren’t exactly flush with cash.
Please tell me what privileges I have. Why did it take me over a decade to come out of the closet to claim said privileges? I mean, the only thing holding you back is the claim that you “abhor dishonesty”. (Such a moral paragon you are. :rolleyes:) I didn’t even have that excuse.
Loosely speaking, I am a “gay M->F transexual”. I’ve been unemployed for nine months. Please tell me which companies would be glad to have me.
What box on what form do I need to check? You know it’s illegal to ask about my trans status, right?
Oh, Google! You mean the company where my coworkers will dox me on 4chan and Kiwi Farms? The company where a trans acquaintance of mine was raped by an executive? And that executive was later dismissed with a ~$100M severance? And this is one of the most trans friendly companies to work for in the nation?
Sports! What sport can I participate in as a woman without taking HRT?
The bathroom protections are so that people like me can use the restroom, if not safely, then at least without fear of legal reprisal. I shouldn’t need to divulge my medical status or convince you of my sincerity to piss. I’ve been assaulted in a men’s restroom, and I no longer have the muscle strength to fight back. I do not “pass”. What do you want me to do? I make an effort to hold it in or use the single-occupancy restroom whenever possible, because I, like all trans people, are very acutely aware of how they are perceived and the effect we have on others. That isn’t always an option, though.
Seriously, what is a “perceived” danger and how does it differ from an actual danger? I don’t ride rollercoasters because I perceive them to be dangerous, even though they generally aren’t. Much to my dismay, I am commonly “perceived” to be a creepy pervy dude with breasts. I assure you that I’m a sweetheart with breasts.
I feel sympathetic to you. But there are ~249 people for every one of you. And they want to feel safe. And apparently they also find you disturbing.
To some extent, law, especially criminal law and morality law, is really just the collective opinion of the majority. Which is overwhelmingly larger than you.
I don’t claim to know what the right answer is, actually. I participated in this thread to try to explain why the “Apache Helicopter” meme is being parroted about. I personally don’t like the idea that morality should be subject to the whim of popular opinion, but in practice it’s all we’ve got*.
*if you dump incoherent religion justifications you end up with basically looking for the greatest good for the greatest many. So by this math, if calling you your preferred gender pronoun will keep you alive, but if having to do so upsets other people more than 1/249 as much as the wrong one upsets you, it’s “immoral” for them to do that.
You haven’t actually read a single thing I’ve posted in this thread, have you?
Once again: Pointing out that the helicopter argument is ridiculous is a shitty response, because the argument is deliberately designed to be ridiculous. By addressing the argument on its own merits, you are playing directly into the hands of the bigot making the argument. You are not making him look ridiculous, you are following his playbook.
It’s also worth noting that SamuelA hasn’t engaged in *any *of your posts, including the ones where you were being “witty” about him drinking jet fuel. You’re not the only one whose made those sort of responses. He’s ignored all of them. The posts he’s responded to have been the ones where people actually argued trans rights on their own merits.
I’d also argue that you have not, in fact, engaged him in a “straightforward” manner, although quoting someone else’s argument that you saw on Twitter is definitely a step up from your first post here.
I think it’s also important to remember that advocating for queer rights isn’t just about convincing the person making bigoted arguments. You can’t go into these things thinking you’re going to change that guy’s mind. You are also playing to anyone watching who hasn’t made up their mind about the subject. This is particularly relevant in this context, because - once again - when you engage the helicopter argument on its own merits, you are following the bigot’s script. He’s not trying to convince you, either, he’s using you as a prop to show the hollowness of your arguments. I’m going to repeat this again, because maybe if I say it six times you’ll finally hear it: the person making this argument wants you to point out the reasons he is not an attack helicopter, specifically so he can turn it around on you and use it as an analogy to trans rights.
I notice you didn’t answer any of my relatively straight-forward questions, like “What privileges do I have as a trans woman?” or “How will being a transsexual help me find a job when many people I know have been fired for being trans?”, and instead want to retreat to Utilitarianism 101. Why is that?
I mean, you’ve really answered the OP here. What’s the difference between being trans and identifying as an attack helicopter? The answer is that more people support trans rights than attack-helicopter rights – which is why, if you want to take a dump on a launch pad or whatever it is that attack helicopters do, you should try to get some popular support. I anticipate that it will be harder for you, because trans identities have existed for millennia and seem to spring up independently. Rotor identities have not, and do not spring up without a political context. I’m not implying that transness is worthy of protection because there’s evidence that it arises naturally, but rather that people seem more willing to accept it as part of the human condition.
But let’s talk about utilitarianism. By the way, I like your phrase “So by this math”, because who can object to impartial mathematics? It’s just numbers! If it’s not mathematical, it’s incoherent religion! So I’m going to borrow it.
You’re trying to pit all 249 non-trans people against me. That’s flawed, and you know it. It’s not just trans people who support trans rights, as is evidenced by the number of people in this thread who are calling out your shenanigans. A Gallup poll from 2017 shows that 52% of women think I should be able to use the women’s restroom, and 40% of women think I shouldn’t. So by this math (52 > 40), I should use the women’s restroom. And you should not use the helicopters’ restroom. (I assume. Gallup didn’t ask.)
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s me against the straights, all 249 of them. You make the following claim.
If (A and B), then C, where
A: Calling me by my pronouns keeps me alive.
B: Calling me by my pronouns upsets people more than 1/249 as much as it pleases me.
C: Calling me by my pronouns is “immoral”, where your use of “immoral” is in “quotes”, presumably because you “refuse” to “commit” to any “conception” of “morality” due to “intellectual” “cowardice”.
So, A. Calling me by my pronouns does not keep me alive. I’ve been called “she” and “her” with eye-rolly derision. I’ve been called “he” and “him” by very well-meaning people. And frankly, when I’m on the street, my pronouns are often “it” and “spit”. I’m still here. But again, for the sake of argument, I will grant you A. If you call me “he”, I will die right then and there.
(By the way, I didn’t make up “it and spit”, but I really like the turn of phrase.)
OK, B. So I derive some amount of utility from being called “she”. And everyone else loses some amount of utility. How do you measure utility? I mean, you’re using the figure 1/249. I presume you can measure it to within 0.4% of… something? And are we simply summing this utility up? Are we averaging it? And if so, which average are we going to use? The geometric mean? The arithmetic mean? The quadratic mean? And why?
You know, I don’t know why I’m even bringing averages up. See, epistemologically, you have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be trans. Being called “he” will kill me (A), and I assign my death a utility of -∞. And even if you dispute that, there’s a concept of gender euphoria, which I experience when you call me “she”. And that feels like melding with the fucking Godhead. I understandably assign it a utility of +∞. So quite frankly, the other 249 of you can eat me. My gain in utility far outweighs your paltry finite losses in utility. So by this math, call me “she”. If your utility losses are also somehow infinite, than by this math, |∞| = |-249∞|, so we’re morally neutral. Except that if you try to kill me by misgendering me, I’m gonna take 250 of you fuckers out with me (in this very not real hypothetical), so by this math, you’d better call me “she”.
In all seriousness, you don’t know my utility function, nor do you know anyone else’s. You have a lot of clarification to do at B for me to accept C. I’m not an ethicist. Honestly, my only formal exposure to utilitarianism has been Bentham and Singer, but I guarantee that “Oh, utilitarianism!” is not a slam-dunk argument. You dismiss all other ethical systems as incoherent religion, but please define a “hedon”, which is what I’m calling your unit-of-utility. I’m deriving some number of hedons from having my testicles removed. You, presumably, derive some number of hedons from keeping yours. Who has more pleasure, me or you? (I’m presuming that you have testicles, given that your name is “Samuel”, but mine apparently is “Ronald”, so we really are in Wackyland.) Compare the lack of safety the average woman feels when I enter a women’s restroom to the lack of safety I feel in a men’s restroom. Consider that I’ve been assaulted in a men’s restroom, and that most women have not been assaulted by a trans woman.
Gosh, you’re a regular Socrates. But that doesn’t stop you from claiming to know how privileged I am. And what women want. And how easy it is for me to find a job. And the corporate environment at Google.
And the fucked up thing with your assertion is that our law isn’t even utilitarian! Law in the US is not the collective opinion of the majority. I’m biracial. When my parents married each other, their marriage had a 75% disapproval rate. It would likely still have been illegal in my home state if it weren’t for the Supreme Court. So by the math (25 < 75), my parents’ marriage was immoral! Fortunately, “There are more intraracial couples than interracial couples” was not a winning utilitarian argument! Did their marriage somehow become more moral? Is your conception of morality dependent on culture? Or is it something fixed and unchanging?
Like, you can tell me “tough shit” and make an appeal to utilitarianism. I’m going to tell you “tough shit” when we vivisect you to harvest your organs to save the lives of ten people*. Not just any ten people either. Ten people who don’t justify oppression with flimsy, half-baked arguments.
Sorry, I’m not being inclusive in my language. Ten people and/or helicopters.
*I’m not actually going to harvest your organs.
It’s actually not hard to fake, for many. With the right surname it’s totally doable since many college applications don’t require photos. Many white and black people are surnamed Jones, Williams, Brown, Smith, etc. and it would be easy for a white applicant to pass off such a surname as being a black person’s.
And even if one did have to submit photos of one’s white appearance, an applicant could easily lie and claim they were 1/4 or 1/8 black and that that’s why they “mostly” look white.
OK, I’m going to play devil’s advocate, because I hate myself.
It’s actually simple for you to fake being a trans woman quite convincingly. Move to California. I’ll give you an endocrinologist referral. Make an appointment, and she’ll give you an estradiol prescription. You just have to sign some paperwork. Take semi-weekly injections. Grow breasts. You’re a science guy, right? I think you’ll find your breasts quite fascinating, purely from a biological and endocrinological point of view! Buy a new “female” wardrobe. I mean, there’s nothing stopping a dude from wearing whatever clothes he wants to wear. I’ve been told I’m quite fashionable. I’ll help you out.
To really be convincing, you’ll need to attend therapy. Don’t worry! I’ll coach you. See, we have a long history of lying to therapists. In the past, any attraction to women was immediately disqualifying, as were a host of other behaviors, so some of us have had to put on artificial displays of “femininity” or lie about our sexual attractions in order to get care. So really, there’s no reason a cis guy couldn’t do it either.
You know, you don’t need any sort of referral to get electrolysis. And at this point you look the part. Shit, I’m an electrologist. If you’ve got a spare 200 hours, I’ll do you for free! Or you can do yourself! My DIY epilator for my legs is really just a 9V battery and a 100K pot. So simple!
You may want to change your voice. My voice is naturally low, and there are some tricks around this. Again, you’re, like, really smart. You went to college for engineering or some shit, so we can talk about F1 and F2 and resonance and other acoustic principles. I know you passed Physics 1, so this should be a cakewalk. You might sound a little funny regardless, but that’s even better! Only a sincere transsexual would speak in such an affected manner. No one will doubt you.
At this point, you really can get referral letters from anyone – who’s going to doubt you? – and move on to bottom surgery. Honestly, they keep all the nerves when they do you. You’ll probably retain the ability to orgasm, if you still have a sex drive that is. Estrogen therapy took mine away. You honestly won’t miss it. Having a libido sorta justifies itself in a weird self-sustaining way, and when it’s gone… you know that refractory period after you orgasm where sex just seems sorta gross? It’s like that all the time! How convenient!
Now you can get that cushy job at Google! And all the perks and privileges that come with being a trans woman!
It’s easy to “fake” being trans. Like, there’s no real logisitical barrier. You don’t have to “pass” as cis-assumed. I certainly don’t. So, at this point, what’s the distinction between you and me? Interiority? Intention? Should you be “allowed” in the women’s restroom? I mean, you are a cis dude. But you’ve jumped through all the hoops. Is the medical stuff necessary (and/but not) sufficient? Why (is it/is it not) sufficient? Why is the medical stuff necessary?
How do you verify my mental state? What if I’m pulling a fast one on everyone? What if I’m trolling everyone on the SDMB? Brian Zembic got breast implants after losing a bet. He could’ve kept going. How do you verify the mental state of someone who just started to transition? How do you know I’m not a cis woman who “detransitioned” after some experimentation and now has patchy facial hair? What’s stopping a cis man from going to the women’s room and saying that he’s a trans man who started T when he was really young, but the law says he has to use the woman’s restroom?
Does my transness depend on me making some kind of effort? If so, what was I when I was in the closet? I was terrified of this for a long time, but I definitely had trans feelings and trans experiences that cleanly map onto those of other trans women. Is your sense of manhood or womanhood dependant on the parts you have? Or is there something interior? Or something cultural?
I’m just asking questions (the favorite phrase of people acting in bad faith). I don’t think there are easy answers either, and I’ve given you a lot of ammo to tear me down, but I personally fail to see why “Believe people when they say what they are” isn’t the starting point.
I have, to my cost, because I hate reading things that are completely wrong, written by people who commit the sins they accuse others of.
SamuelA wasn’t in the thread when I made that post, so it’s obvious you’re the one who isn’t reading correctly.
However, this digression isn’t helping the thread. Since you won’t stop hijacking it with your cuddled opinions on the one and only right way to do things I’ll bow out. You’ll have to find another target of your internet tough guy act in a different thread.