Because you’re asking about social responsibility, not legal requirements. Yes, people should be socially responsible, which includes being decent to their neighbors.
Actually, that is FAR from universal although anglophones often assume it is. A lot of cultures in history, and even today, do NOT do this and find it confusing as hell, stupid, or even demeaning. Yet another example of a person assuming a local custom is universal.
As far as “undisputed” - actually not. There have been numerous exceptions to that rule for centuries for various reasons. They’re outliers, but prove that the custom is not “undisputed”
Yes, in our culture this has been the norm for a long time but we’re but one culture among many.
“Decency and respect” sometimes comes down to “don’t start arguments in public”. If you’re interaction with someone is brief then just “be polite” as mom used to say whether you agree with them or not. It’s less disruptive to life and society if you ignore the person walking past you on the street wearing a t-shirt with a political viewpoint you disagree with rather than engaging in a shouting match.
If you have to associate with people you disagree with on fundamental topics on a more on-going basis that’s a different problem. In the work setting the usual rule is to focus on work and leave the personal stuff at home. Rules may be instituted to keep the peace, such as “no religious discussion as work” or “use preferred pronouns”. You don’t have to like or agree with coworkes, you just have to work with them. At the end of the day you can all go home and be yourselves.
Outside of those two circumstances you don’t actually have to interact with anyone you don’t want to. So I fail to see the problem here. No one is being asked to change their deep-down feelings. You can continue to view trans gender people as wrong, deluded, or whatever. You are being asked to refer to such people in a way that maybe you don’t feel comfortable doing, but you really only have to do that on the rare occasions you interact with them, which you are free to limit to very infrequent. You’re not being asked to like them or agree with them, just be polite. Personally, I don’t know why this is generating a brain cramp but then I don’t have to understand that, just recognize that you do have such a cramp and be polite about it…
Trans people just want to lives their lives without being subjected to scorn or violence. There, was that so difficult?
Think of it like disabled people who want wheelchair ramps into building or braille on signs - they want to be able to lives their lives. Frankly, building ramps and changing signs is a LOT more inconvenience and expense to society than using preferred pronouns yet we did that. (And yes, there were and are people whining about disabled people inconveniencing others but they didn’t “win” and society changed around them). Using preferred pronouns is something we do to enable these people to live their best lives and contribute to society.
Why do people feel “cornered” by being asked to referred to someone by preferred pronouns? For that matter, why do some people feel “cornered” by same sex marriage?
I recently heard that to some people loss of privilege feels like oppression. But it isn’t oppression, it’s what other people have lived with for centuries. They complain about how horrible the “new rules” are while those who didn’t have privilege are wondering how the hell they find what has been ordinary existence to be so horribly intolerable? One side is supposed to shut the hell up and continue to live under disadvantage so the other side doesn’t have to change and lose any comfort?
This argument reminds me of some used against inter-racial marriage. And they don’t work for me.
NO ONE is asking you to be involved in human reproduction involving a trans gender person. Since you’re not involved you can have whatever feelings you want about it, but society is asking you not to start unnecessary arguments with other people.
It’s like, oh, I don’t know - policing someone else’s religious practices. Like the time two young Saudi men started patronizing the store I work at. Both were Muslims but for several weeks all they bought was various forms of pork and alcohol. Now, I know that violates religious rules in Islam but I kept my views to myself because it’s none of my business how they do or don’t practice a religion. I don’t say jack to observant Jews I know who keep kosher but occasionally sneak some bacon or eat a cheeseburger. I don’t go “AHA! CAUGHT YOU!” if I see an Amish person using a smart phone. I would ignore a Hindu eating a steak. All of these actions seem quite incompatible with the religion these folks claim to be but again, none of my business. I am not the religion police. I’ll continue to refer to them by their preferred religion because a lapse doesn’t suddenly make them into something else.
Likewise, if I see a trans person for whatever reason doing something I’d consider at odds with what I’d see as “trans” I’m not going to say shit about it. I’m not the gender police. It’s none of my business. I don’t find any cost to referring to someone by preferred pronouns. A “lapse” doesn’t make them not-trans. A lot of late-transitioning trans women don’t “pass” well but I don’t see any benefit to anyone by pointing that out. A pregnant trans man doesn’t “pass” well, either, but I don’t see any benefit to pointing that out, either.
Some of this sounds to me like the old notion that a trans woman had to be not just feminine but hyper-feminine to be able to transition. It feels like a “gotcha” to say “AHA! THIS PERSON IS NOT REALLY TRANS!” Why? Why do people feel a need to do these things?
Why are these people you are talking to politicizing gender?
If you go before a judge and change your legal name to Mr. Stud Man will they continue to refuse to use that name? Even though it is now your legal and proper name?
What do YOU think would be justification for treating a pregnant trans man “on the good side of the line”?
For me, “be polite and try not to cause harm to others” works just fine as justification. I agree with your observation this is not sufficient for others. What would convince them that using preferred pronouns for a pregnant trans man is justified?
I submit that none of us should be the gender police.
Society ignores reality all the time. Not a year went by when I was married when I didn’t encounter people who refused to use my legal name. On numerous occasions medical people refused to acknowledge my spouse and I were married because they didn’t understand why a normal person would marry someone disabled, up to requiring us to produce a marriage certificate. That’s just two examples from the life of someone who is actually in a privileged segment of society due to accident of birth and ancestry. If I could be arsed I could probably come up with other examples.
Who are you to define what actions are or aren’t contrary to a particular gender? How many gender violations is a person permitted? What do you think should be the consequences if there are too many such violations? Because if a trans man “violates” the “gender rules” by getting pregnant I’m sure he will also be violating a bunch of other rules for being a woman by some of his other actions.
Maybe I’ll start a thread called “On Catholics who use birth control, have premarital sex, and get abortions”. I mean, if they’re Catholic, they are not allowed to use birth control or have premarital sex. And yet, it happens all the time. It’s weird! How can they call themselves Catholic if they use the pill or condoms?? It makes no sense.
My feelings on all of this are simply that, if a man actually WANTS to assume the onerous and distasteful duty of gestation, he’s welcome to have at it as far as I’m concerned. I, for one, certainly wouldn’t discourage him in any way. LOL
Ultravires
I’m stll waiting for an answer to this post On pregnant men and the like - #99 by DocCathode
You’re kidding, right? My kids are 8, and I think 3/4 of the purpose of school is to get kids used to this.
I am constantly having to tell my kids that something they ask about is just how it works and they need to do what their teacher says, or follow the rule, or whatever.
When the rule is about being respectful and courteous though, I don’t really have any trouble explaining it to them and saying why they should follow it.
Back to the OP question, I’m curious. Imagine you know John, who is an older guy. One day, he introduces you to his adult son. You and John are pretty friendly, and you all about who the son’s mother is. John tells you that, actually, he carried his son before he transitioned. John explains that he always felt like a man, but tried to be “normal” for a long time before finally deciding to transition. Would your reaction to that be different?
But, as you note, it’s just a social custom, and there are many societies that don’t have that custom. And even in societies that followed that custom pretty consistently for hundreds of years, that custom is changing nowadays.
So you’re painting yourself into a corner if you keep trying to insist that the expectations about social customs that you happened to grow up with should automatically take precedence over their modern forms.
Where do you draw the line between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” forms of a transgender man wanting to “still act like a woman”?
According to you, is a transgender man still “entitled” to be called a man if, say, he cooks dinner for his spouse? If he works as a secretary? If he wears makeup? Wears a skirt? Can’t grow a beard? Enjoys PIV sex (with him supplying the V)? Or do you draw that line only at pregnancy, and if so, why?
You seem to have missed my rebuttal in post #92 pointing out that the criterion in question is “doing harm” period, not specifically “doing harm” to others.
In fact, all your points so far in this thread have been rebutted, and all you’re left with is the obstinate repetition that you shouldn’t have to call a pregnant man a man if you don’t wanna and nobody has succeeded in persuading you otherwise. Well, it looks like you came into this issue pretty unpersuadable from the get-go, so that’s not really surprising.
I’ve often thought comparisons to religion are relevant to these gender discussions. Anyone can call themselves a follower of a religion regardless of how closely they follow the tenants of that religion. Christians run the gamut of people who go to church and read the Bible every day to people who never go to church and have never opened a Bible. Some Christians believe the description of God verbatim as in the Bible while other Christians have constructed their own version of God. Some Christians live a very moral and honorable life, while others cheat and murder. The only thing we can really say that’s universal about people who identify as Christians is that they identify as Christians.
I think this pertains to the gender discussions. The only thing in common who people who say they are [Gender] is that they say they are [Gender]. Virtually nothing else is universally common between people who say they are [Gender]. Saying “I identify as Gender” is a statement that doesn’t have any inherent meaning. It means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean.
We can say that there are aspects that are more common overall in certain groups, but that doesn’t mean that everyone in that group will have that trait. Like with religion, it’s more likely that church attendance is more common in Christians than atheists. That doesn’t mean that church attendance is a way to differentiate between Christians and atheists. Some Christians don’t go to church and some atheists do. But overall, many more Christians will go to church than atheists. It’s the same with gender. Even aside from any trans issues, there is a huge breadth of variety in people who have been a single gender their whole lives. There are very few traits you could find common in every person who has been male their whole life. There are traits that will be very common, but there will also be lots of exceptions.
So, what you asked was:
(Bolding added)
And also, (paraphrasing) “how can a man want to bear a child?”
But now you seen to be asking, instead, “how can i accept that a person who is pregnant is female, in my heart of hearts”.
Your first question has been answered: referring to a trans man as a woman is cruel and hurtful, so decent people avoid doing that.
The second question has also been answered: many people have a profound desire to make babies. A trans man doesn’t have the parts to sire one, but may be able to bear one. So some of them settle for bearing a child, so as to be able to make a baby.
The third question is harder. And since you never explicitly asked it, no one has tried to answer it, except to say, “you really don’t need to do that.”
An answer is that you would first need to understand something of the complex and messy relationship between sex and gender. And recognize that people sometimes feel things that don’t make a lot of sense to others. And extend a level of trust to strangers to believe they feel what they claim they feel. That may or may not be a place you want to go. But as others have said, you really don’t need to. Just being kind is good enough. Heck, just avoiding cruelty is good enough. And the reasons to be kind to trans men are the same as the reasons to be kind to any other human being.
Common courtesy demands that we address a person as they wish.
I am curious what health insurance a man applies for if he intends to become pregnant.
Also, if a pregnant man is seriously injured and the triage nurse asks for gender, it seems in his, and the child’s, best interest to answer female.
All the medical forms I’ve had to fill out recently have asked for my gender and also for my sex assigned at birth. Most have also asked for my preferred pronouns.
Any medical aid in transitioning is highly relevant to future medical care. For that matter, since there is often some underlying biological basis to feeling that you don’t fit the gender assigned at birth (such as having been exposed to non-standard hormone levels during fetal development), just being trans, even without specific medical treatments, suggests that your doctor should be cautious of anything that varies “by sex”.
There’s a lot of stuff we don’t ask our co-workers or casual friends that doctors routinely ask. That includes “have you ever had cancer?” “do you have a family history of diabetes?” and “does your gender match your sex assigned at birth?”
Thanks - looks like the society is adapting.
The “solid logic” in the 1950’s, and to a significant extent well into the 70’s, was that women should not be treated equally in the workplace; and, in a lot of areas of the country and to some extent in the others, Black people were treated as second class citizens – if as citizens at all. I don’t know what dimension you lived in/learned your history about, but it wasn’t this one.
They’re not your opponents if you’re agreeing with them, now are they?
And you’d been given answers for that, already, multiple times by that point in the thread; and have had them repeated more multiples of times since.
Really?
Seemed to me the core of what used to be mainstream, rural society was “help out your neighbors when necessary and mind your own business the rest of the time.”
And if we acknowledged that for either of those terms there had to be more than two alternatives.
Trying to accomplish a world in which nobody ever thinks anyone else is “somewhat weird” is a lost cause. Humans are weird. Not all humans are weird in the same fashion. There is no possible way to arrange the world so that nobody will ever think somebody else is weird, other than I suppose by dressing us all up starting at birth in identical costumes covering every inch and then attempting to enforce identical behavior on everybody. (Which, even aside from being unworkable, would be pretty weird.)
Tell your friends that there are plenty of people who think that your friends are weird, and not to worry about it.
There is an utterly obvious good, logical reason to draw a distinction beween child molesters or murderers and pregnant transwomen: which is that child molesters and murderers are doing clear and significant harm to other people, and pregnant transwomen aren’t.
The comparison is offensive.
I would bet that you are utterly and absolutely wrong.
Try telling the people who are annoyed about paying for a building permit that sure, they can have the permit for free and with no questions asked and won’t even have to bother applying – if they’ll just live for ten years as male if they’re sure that they’re female, or as female if they’re sure that they’re male; or live for ten years as fully married in a same gender marriage if they don’t want one.
I was taught an awful lot of crap while I was growing up (along with some entirely accurate stuff.) How on earth is “I was taught this when I was growing up!” an argument for anything at all?
If you didn’t let it out, then it wouldn’t matter.
Whether John is a man or not does not depend in any way on whether you, personally, believe deep in your heart that John is a man or not.
– I have friends who are Old Order Mennonites. I expect they believe I’m going to hell. They don’t tell me about it. We’re good. (If they started insisting on telling me about it, we wouldn’t be.)
Some of their K-3 children can’t avoid being exposed to it, because some of their K-3 children are trans, and/or are gay and already have some sense of that, and/or have parents or other beloved family members who are gay or trans, and/or have classmates whose parents or other beloved family members are gay or trans.
So do trans people.
Why on earth should that be a logical appeal when applied to gay people, or Black people, or Italian people, or very etcetera; but not when applied to trans people?
Not any more than society demanding that you share a railroad car or a drinking fountain with people of a different race. There were plenty of people who didn’t want to do that either. It went against what they’d been taught when they were growing up, after all.
Of course we did. It just hadn’t yet occured to the anti-gay and anti-trans people that they might be in the minority. Many people don’t think it’s polarizing an issue when they think most others agree with them, but do think it’s polarizing when others disagree with them.
For millennia there have been lots of societies that recognized more than two genders.
Society demands that people act in a certain way all the damn time.
Try going downtown with no clothes on.
That was post 133 in a thread of people seriously engaged in this.
Has been, multiple times in the thread.
Then your example of “stud-man” has nothing to do with the subject either?
The rich and the poor have an equal right to sleep under bridges?
Giving everybody the right to fit into one of two boxes and claiming that therefore everything’s fine doesn’t work at all when some people fit comfortably into one of those boxes and others don’t fit into either without contortions they find agonizing, some to the point of suicide.
If we’re going to have a law that somebody doesn’t have a right to live as they want, we should be able to provide a reason why. If that right has to do with who they do or don’t want to sleep with, whether and/or how they want to have children, and/or what their essential personal identity is, we should be able to provide a damn good reason why. What reason have you provided in this thread, other than “it isn’t what we were taught when we were children”?
This is probably true. Having typed all this out anyway, I think I’m gonna post it.
UltraVires I just got home from a weekend at a friend’s. I see you still haven’t answered my questions. Here’s a link to them On pregnant men and the like - #147 by DocCathode
That’s not why I feel shameful. Shame comes from within, not without.
I believe individuals who can get pregnant have every right to identify as men, yet in my heart of hearts it may (or may not! I haven’t met a pregnant trans man) be that I never accept him as a man. This is no different than a person of an older generation who recognizes that people with dark brown skin have every right to be treated as equals, yet in his or her heart of hearts believes them to be inferior. That is why I feel ashamed.
~Max
I look at it the other way. The only thing that matters to me is how I personally feel, deep down inside. I, not you, decide what does or does not matter to me. It just so happens that if I was disrespectful to someone on the basis of their identity, I would feel like a horrible person. Maybe not immediately but eventually guilt would set in, and I hope to have the foresight to see that and the discipline to prevent it. If I didn’t have empathy to lean on I would be a certifiable psycopath.
That’s what identity is, isn’t it? To separate the like from unlike. You have to feel, Joe is like me, as we are both men we share an identity. And then you find out Joe is pregnant, he’s not like me. This could go two ways: you could get over it, which means weakening your sense of identity. ‘Identity is a spectrum, not male and female’. There are ‘half-male’ and quarter-male identities and ever smaller pieces of identity to share with a trans man. Or it is fluid and always changing, incapable of being held down to a universal definition. ‘Men are a divers group, the only thing we can strictly say they all share is that they all identify as men.’ When you think about it, identity doesn’t actually exist; it’s not like an apple you can hold in your hand.
Or you could feel betrayed and become angry. Have you been deceived? Has God, if you believe it, decided to play tricks on you? Or worse yet, were you wrong all this time - was it your fault for mis-identifying someone as like you? Did you betray your own identity? Why do you think some parents become angry when their children come out? It has little to do with logic or morals or the child’s feelings, nothing to do with decency and respect, and everything to do with the parent’s mind and deep feelings.
~Max
Nobody is ever going to be exactly like you; just like nobody is ever going to be exactly like me.
And I don’t see what that’s got to do with one’s sense of identity. I’m me. I’m me if somebody else is mostly like me, and I’m me if somebody else is mostly unlike me (as much as possible if we’re still both human) and I’m me if somebody else is even more unlike me (because they’re a cat or a dolphin or whatever.) Me is who’s contained by this skin. It’s got nothing to do with who you are. It does not in any way weaken my sense of identity if you’re less like me or if you’re more like me.
I consider myself a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team; as such I’m a fan of Yadier Molina, who has been our catcher for eighteen years. Supposing I met a person who claimed to be a fellow Cardinal fan. I would assume said person was a fan of Yadier Molina, because in my head that is an essential part of being in the Cardinal Nation. Some might say Ted Simmons is the greatest of all time, some might say Molina should have retired a couple years ago, which is fine. But if you don’t like Molina, you can’t be a Cardinals fan. It’s inconceivable.
We’re bonding over baseball, then it comes out he doesn’t like Molina, that’s comparable to learning that a male friend chose to become pregnant. It’s kind of a slap in the face. There’s two ways I could take it: either he’s not really a Cardinals fan, or my idea of what a Cardinals fan is - what all members of the Cardinal nation share, and the basis on which I identify with them - is wrong.
~Max