I think this is a key takeaway for me from the discussion, and several people have said this. Thanks, I appreciate everyone’s thoughts!
I reserve the right to think whatever I like, including “I am not sure what gender that person is presenting as but whatever it is, it’s not working” or “the purple mohawk really goes with the dog collar” or even “green eye shadow must be on sale at Target”. It’s rude to comment on a stranger’s appearance in public, but you can think whatever you like. “Live and let live” contains a certain amount of social hypocrisy, but it is better than nothing.
Issues arise IMO when it goes beyond “live and let live”. Jordan Peterson was mentioned above. I have not heard everything he has said on the subject, and the only book of his I read has little to do with transgenderism. But he originally came to prominence on YouTube, AFAICT, because he objected to being mandated, not in what he thought, but in what he was being requested/required to do. That is, address transgender people as a matter of law by their preferred pronouns. That tended to get caught up in other issues, like which rest room/locker room to use. That goes beyond “live and let live”, and constitutes, on some level, a request for validation.
The idea of “address me like you would any other woman” or “I should use whatever rest room any other woman would use” misses the point, and to a certain, admittedly low level, enforces the idea that a transgender woman is like any other woman. Transgender and cisgender are different. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe it’s a bad thing. But it’s a thing. And, just like you don’t have to justify your choices to me, in what you wear or how you think of yourself, I don’t have to justify mine to you.
If it doesn’t hurt anything to say “think what you like but you have to say so-and-so” then it doesn’t hurt students to be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or to have “in God we trust” on the money. And if it doesn’t hurt anyone to be compelled to share a rest room with someone of a different gender, then it doesn’t hurt transgender people to use the men’s room if they were born male.
Transgender people shouldn’t be beaten up or killed or insulted to their face or any of the rest of that. Feel free to accuse me of saying so, as long as you aren’t disappointed when I don’t care. Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone. But don’t ask me what I think, even indirectly.
Regards,
Shodan
Way to drag in unrelated issues. We were discussing what you should say as a matter of morality. What the government can make you do or say or can say itself are matters of law and the Constitution.
Nobody is asking for folks to use a restroom with someone of a different gender. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.
Again, trans men WERE born male.
If you could take a representative, random sample of all human beings currently alive on Earth here in 2019, a cross-sample that cuts across all countries and cultures, and ask 100 people “Do you believe trans men were born male?” (naturally translated into their own native language) what percentage do you think would answer “Yes”?
Fortunately, scientific facts don’t change with popularity
Please point out to me the section in C-16 that required people to not misgender others.
This is what I was talking about when it comes to matters of perception. this is not just telling people how to act (i.e., don’t be insulting or violent). This is telling people how to think. And there is a lot of conflict beginning to arise from this issue:
Cis feminists vs. trans women. It’s ugly.
Note that, although I am calling it a matter of perception, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you as to the final conclusion. I am just disagreeing that it’s simply a matter of fact so people should just fall in line and act and think a certain way.
There does not seem to be settled, agreed-upon science in this area, and at the very least, it is something that lies at the nexus of science and politics.
You would also seem to be ignoring degrees of feeling and matters of personal choice. E.g., I think most gay people were born that way, but I have a gay friend who says that he chose to be gay (and there is a growing number of gay people who feel that way, it seems). I think his expression deserves to be honored.
Similarly, there are people who strongly feel they are a certain gender from birth, and I would suspect there are those with more ambivalent feelings, and some who feel it is a personal choice to be one gender or another. Thus, I would strongly suspect that there are trans people who do not say they were “born that way” but who choose to be a different gender at some stage.
Personally, I don’t mind sharing the bathroom with whoever, so it’s all the same to me. But in the OP, this was a thing I was concerned about: requiring people to have a complete political catechism in their heads concerning trans people. I don’t think that’s realistic.
I couldn’t wade through this hate-filled TERF rant. Yes, some extremists hate trans people.
I’m a cis feminist and I’m not against trans women. Nor are most feminists.
So does anthropogenic global warming. Should we ignore the science on that?
And what would it take for you to agree that the science on the trans brain is settled and agreed upon?
To most people, the politics involved are going to be obscure and sort out. Reading that, I’m not sure what’s going on or what to believe, and I’m basically on board with a Left-leaning approach to trans issues. Most people are going to be well behind that curve.
[/quote]
Nope. But solutions (i.e., how we try to get people to behave and think) in either case are going to be political.
This is perhaps the first assertion I’ve read that it’s settled. It seems like an area in which serious research has fairly recently begun, and much more research is required.
I’m old enough to have gone through the time when women had very strict social dress codes in anything outside of a sporting event or a backyard barbecue. Women had to wear dresses in my junior high and high school, for example. Those who broke this tradition and dressed in what was called “unisex” back then got some flack. Men with long hair got some flack also. People got over it. People can get over this also.
Trans women I know dress in a more feminine way than average. Trans men might be more mistaken but only because women dress in more masculine clothes normally than men do in feminine clothes. (That’s traditionally before both of those - real clothes have no gender.)
But basically none of anyone’s business without a specific request for comment.
:dubious: No. That is why they are trans. You can say they always knew they were a boy, or were born with a male brain (if that is a thing), but they were not born male.
How would you define “male” then?
Could you explain the times that these differences (if they exist) have affected you?
If I may answer myself…
It’s a tough question. There are those as well who hold that gender is entirely a social construct; i.e., it doesn’t exist. Such thinkers often point to those of ambiguous gender, etc., to make their case.
I don’t see it that way. There are clear biological trends that have caused every society in the world to see people as “men” and “women” despite the ambiguous cases.
Nature is messy. Some people have ambiguous genitalia, and many have feelings that they don’t belong in the bodies they were born with. Society is even messier, and there is an infinite amount of bullshit imposed on people with respect to gender and sexuality.
So answering what is truly “male” and “female” is going to be messy too. I don’t think there is any neat political bow that can be tied on it.
FWIW, I think the easiest solution is to consider everyone “gender-nonconforming” by default and have reduced to zero expectations about gender roles.
As I understand it Dr. Peterson’s issue with C-16 was due to its interaction with the Ontario Human Rights Code/Commission which defines sexual harassment as, "…engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” It goes on defines gender-based harassment as, “…any behaviour that polices and reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms” and lists as an example, “…using language that puts someone down.”
Not only is that language disturbingly vague but while C-16 may not apply to universities the Ontario Code makes clear that it applies to post- secondary education. And of course the legal counsel of the University of Toronto where Dr. Peterson is employed thought the threat of the University being held liable was sufficient that they advised him of this fact.
Which scientific facts are you referring to specifically? And while the actual facts don’t change due to popularity the consensus of what the scientific community believes to be factual changes entirely due to popularity. And you seem to begrudgingly acknowledge that this isn’t settled science but then asking what scientific proof would be acceptable, as if the other person is being deliberately obtuse in accepting scientific evidence when you have provided exactly zero, seems somewhat disingenuous.
nods
That’s how I use the words, too. It is useful to have some term (or set of terms) to refer to the physical plumbing, the morphology.
Don’t get me wrong: I understand and sympathize with transgender people who, for any of a wide variety of possible reasons, do not opt to have their morphology surgically and/or hormonally modified, but who do not appreciate any language-use that implies that they are less than or inferior to other people with the same gender identity that they have.
But transgender people who wish to blend in and be perceived as and treated as the gender with which they identify are not the only people with a vested interest in the overall situation. There are gender-variant people who do not wish to blend in in that fashion – some of whom identify as transgender and some of whom do not. There are also intersex people who, in order to explain and advocate for the political concerns relevant to their situation, need to be able to speak of sex and of gender as two separate considerations.
So that’s a no on the pronouns thing then. Glad we could clear it up.
Well perhaps some other people have gained some clarity on the issue but it seems you haven’t. Which of course isn’t that surprising when the question purporting to be a honest request for further information is instead a rhetorical device where the asker is instead going to ignore the factual answer and stick with their preconceived biases and ignorance. Or did you have an actual factual rebuttal based on your vast knowledge of English Common Law systems in general and Canadian Law in particular?
I cited actual legal language from the Ontario Human Rights Code that was so vague and poorly worded that, until clarified by subsequent precedent, could be interpreted to compel/prohibit the very conduct Dr. Peterson was so concerned about. The penalty for which could amount to a substantial fine and even vicarious liability for his employer the University of Toronto. And of course even being accused of such a violation could incur costs of thousands of dollars (even Canadian dollars) in legal fees even to prove his innocence.
And once again, and its telling how you and others seem to ignore or minimize this fact, the University’s legal counsel thought the potential legal issue enough of a concern to repeatedly warn Dr. Peterson that failing to use the pronouns in question could incur legal liability on behalf of himself and the University as his employer. Or do you claim to know more about this legal issue than the counsel for Canada’s largest and one of its most prestigious universities? Considering your seeming disdain for actual facts and your apparent reticence to alleviate your ignorance it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.
This is how I use the words as well. I am very gender non-conforming, but I identify as my biological sex/assigned sex. I find the sex/gender distinction useful, and it describes well how I view myself and how I wish to represent it. I also find it confusing and inconvenient to try to eliminate references to biological sex, because I want to be able to refer to, for example, “the male dogs,” rather than “the dogs with penises.”
All that said, I try my best to use the terms individuals prefer. I do think there has been some overgeneralization about what terms are sort of universally appropriate. Again, using myself as an example, I prefer to be able to state my sex, and express my gender, and that makes for an expansive view of gender.
I recognize that human sex is much less dimorphic that previously thought, but I think it is more or less on a continuum. Gender is a lot more complicated, given possible elements of genetics, hormones, and family and social conditioning, all custom blended for each individual.