I’m presuming based on this that if in your sphere you had trans people whom you did not find “off”, you would not associate with them less - is that accurate?
May I ask on what basis you suspect this?
Yes, if it’s extremely hard to tell, and the voice sounds more typical, it’s close to a non issue in terms of my unease. To see a neutral and over the top/extreme example of this, take that alien bug from the original men in black movie.
Something there is REALLY off, and we know what. Trans people that look nothing like what they are trying to appear as give off milder versions of that to me, and I find it off putting. I could probably “get over it” with constant and repeated exposure, but until then, I’d rather not be bothered.Observations over a lifetime, and seeing the discrepancies between what people say and what they think/feel/do.
And presumably, you would feel just as uneasy if a woman with a masculine, “off” voice had been born bodily female?
“Think/feel/do” seems like kind of an odd composite, there.
Given that you’ve said that would prefer to avoid situations with trans people who give you that “off” feeling, why would your personal life experience be a good basis for determining how people think and feel about such people? Personally I would say that I don’t think any one person’s life experience would be enough to conclude anything useful about the thoughts and feelings of people in general. But it seems another level of odd to me to base an opinion on what happens in situations I actively avoided on my own experience.
Is it wrong? Sure. Is it dick-ish? Sure.
I think , however, in some cases that’s the point.
Here’s my personal point of view…
A person born as a man but transgendered and living as a woman. Does that bother me?
If they don’t look/sound/act feminine… Well, plenty of biological females don’t either. So what?
Calling a transgendered woman a woman… It costs me nothing, it’s the civilized thing to do, and avoids upsetting someone without cause.
So they may have male parts… So what? I’m not getting into bed with them, and there are plenty of biological females I wouldn’t get in bed with.
To me it all comes down to there being nothing to be upset or uncomfortable about. Again, it’s just my opinion.
It appears to me that there are a lot of people who harbor nasty bigoted attitudes about other people. Most of the time they have enough shame that they’ll hide those attitudes. But if they really dislike someone, they’ll wield those nasty bigoted attitudes as a weapon against the person they dislike.
Which, okay.
I agree that much of the PC movement seems to consist of insisting that words are changed out of the apparent hope that the underlying reality will also change.
But I do not agree that this is true here.
Part of this conflict is simply reaching an agreement about what the words mean. But if you’re willing to stipulate that after gender confirmation surgery, it’s appropriate to use the new pronoun, then it seems to me you agree in principle that a person born with XY chromosomes can correctly be called ‘she.’
In one of Feynman’s books, he discusses a philosophy course in which he poses the question, “Does a brick have an inside?” He had intended to point out that the moment you break a brick to prove it had an inside, you have simply created more “outside.” That a brick has an inside is best thought of, he said, as a useful model for the universe, because if we assume a brick has an inside, that model allows us to correctly predict every single test to which we can subject the brick.
With this in mind, I invite you to consider that calling a person who identifies as female “she” and agreeing that she is a woman is a useful model, because it correctly maps what is relevant about her gender. Now, you may demur and argue that it does nto correctly account for the physical body parts – but how, specifically, are those relevant to the societal treatment of the person?
But this isn’t quite right. Science has long since moved past the binary “man-woman” paradigm. There are multiple aspects to one’s person - biological sex, gender, sexual orientation, genetics… And none of them really need to match up. They are all distinct physiological characteristics, and how a person identifies is made up of the mixture.
You say an XX chromosome would do it. What about people who have XX male syndrome? Their biological sex and gender don’t match their genetics. They have a penis and testicles, they display outwardly as male, they typically identify as male, but they have an XX chromosome.
It’s complicated. Here’s what isn’t complicated: there’s only one of those factors that has a substantial impact on well-being when it comes to how we label each other or how we are labeled. And that’s gender. Your chromosomes don’t care if you call yourself a girl. Your dick certainly doesn’t. Your mind does.
To me, that’s the crux of the issue. Misgendering people can do a lot to aggravate things like gender dysphoria. Forcing a transwoman to use the men’s bathroom is a legitimate mental health risk, along with all the other dangers posed by placing someone who looks like this in a men’s bathroom.
So this:
Is nonsense. If you want to define a person as “male” or “female” based exclusively on their genetics, or what they have in their pants, that’s fine, but don’t pretend you’re speaking the gospel truth. You’re voicing your opinion on how we define such terms. And it’s a harmful opinion.
This. It literally costs nothing. Some people are still living in 1979, I guess.
I think it is true.
I think you are begging the question. How is it useful, how is it correct, and why is what people want to believe relevant?
IOW what is the relevant distinction between “that person has XY chromosomes and a penis” and “that person has XY chromosomes and a penis, but doesn’t want to admit it?” What underlying reality has changed between the two?
Regards,
Shodan
Gender identity correlates to brain structure.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302211000252
The underlying reality that has changed is biology. Gender identity is not a matter of “admitting” or not. The evidence is mounting that gender identity is based on brain structure, and not something that you can change. A transman isn’t refusing to admit that he is really a woman. He’s acknowledging that the most useful indicator in determining whether you are a man or a woman is not your genes, is not your genitalia, but rather is what your brain says.
Why is it the most useful, as opposed to chromosomes or genitalia? Neither of your Wiki cites show that.
Regards,
Shodan
Excellent question!
And it’s excellent because it exposes the disconnect in the discussion, to wit: why are the chromosomes or the presence of a penis relevant in a discussion of the social recognition of gender?
I know plenty of men, but of them, a vanishingly small number are men for whom I have independently confirmed their possession of a penis. Not one of them has given me independent confirmation of their genetic makeup. So I suggest that the presence of a penis and XY chromosome makeup is not nearly as critical as you hint it is.
I’m glad you thought it was a good question. Could you answer it?
What underlying reality is different between the person who has XY chromosomes and a penis, and the person who has XY chromosomes and a penis, but doesn’t want to admit it?
Regards,
Shodan
The answer is: I don’t think there’s much difference.
But I also don’t think your description correctly …er… describes transgendered women. They are perfectly aware they have XY chromosomes and a penis. They contend that this not a useful model for determining whether one is male for the purposes of societal gender identification.
And I agree.
Which is why I said originally that the dispute can’t be resolved. One side wants to use terms to refer to objective facts, and the other to refer to subjective states of mind. Both sides are saying “you have to mean what I want, not what you want”.
Regards,
Shodan
But what if the subjective state of mind is based on objective facts, in this case brain structure?
Also, at least how I was brought up, when someone wants me to do something different than what I want to do, if they are the primarily affected party, then I defer to their decision out of courtesy. It’s their gender, not mine, so the correct choice to me appears to be to call them what they wish.
I’m presuming you’re referring to your side as the one referring to “objective facts”. That seems largely a case of how you frame the point. If your usage is, “I call male whoever has a penis and XY chromosomes”, unless you’re performing a DNA test and checking what they’re packing, you aren’t relying on an objective fact when you call someone male. And similarly, if you’re going with “I call male whoever claims that they are male”, for a very simple and basic example, someone saying that or not is an objective fact.
Unless you are interacting with a person’s chromosomes or genitalia, how are they relevant?
Huh? Where did you get this from?