Well, I don’t know of anyone who arguing for gender fluidity, not having it as an option doesn’t seem too much of a loss. Maybe we’ll both be overtaken by future developments, but, at this moment, shrug.
On the other hand, I don’t see what is gained by having TF and TM as driver license options. Do I have to report that my hair used to be dark, but I’ve bleached it? Do I have to report that I used to have to wear glasses, but have had Lasik? Do I have to note that I used to have tattoos, but had them removed? What does the government care about what I used to be?
There is a huge difference between lack of attraction and revulsion. I am not attracted to the immense majority of people, but I don’t go “ewww” at the thought of all those billions I don’t find attractive, nor do I ask for them to be refused basic human rights.
Same basic question as, well, every time. Do either of you two recognize that gender identity is a thing that exists, and is distinct from biological sex? Because that’s really the starting point. In order to understand trans issues, you have to understand that gender identity exists, and not just pretend it doesn’t.
And yes, my choice of wording is correct. You would be pretending it doesn’t exist, because the scientific basis for gender identity is decades old and encompasses thousands of papers. Here’s just a small smattering:
And, in case you didn’t bother to read any of them, that last one is from 1979. Yeah. This is not a new thing. If you reject the existence of gender identity as a distinct facet of human psychology, you are literally 35 years behind the research, and there’s, quite frankly, no reason to take you or your opinion seriously on the subject. There just isn’t. You can appeal to “common senwse” or “natural law” all you want, but all you’re doing is unreasonably oversimplifying an issue far beyond reason in order to uphold your own prejudices.
So, can we accept that Gender Identity is a thing and continue, or would you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and mark yourselves as utterly unworthy of continued debate on this topic?
The American College of Pediatricians is a hate group and basically the pediatric equivalent of Answers in Genesis when it comes to actual facts. Their stated positions almost invariably go against the positions of American Association of Pediatrics, an organization with a membership quite a few orders of magnitude larger, and also against the scientific consensus. They exist solely to push an anti-LGBTQ opinion. Case in point:
They don’t get that Gender Identity exists and is distinct from sex.
They explicitly deny the existing (and indeed overwhelming) evidence of gender identity. This is not a legitimate scientific organization, to put it bluntly. This is a cross between an advocacy group and a hate group, belonging in the same category as the American Family Association and One Million Moms.
because then we can both allow transgenders to use the bathroom of their “gender identity” but keep people out who don’t belong in there. There is a lot of fear you uber-progressives aren’t just gonna shame away about people who don’t belong in a certain bathroom going into one. Also, to prevent crime, just as one’s driver license and SS card say male/female, they do to establishment identity. Birth certificate also says race and those things too. Why not for transvestites if they’re truly legitimate?
You spend a lot of time thinking about public bathrooms, don’t you. You know who doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about public bathrooms? Sexual abuse survivors, who are decrying these laws as unnecessary and counterproductive.
Are you deliberately confusing “transvestite” with “transgendered” as some sort of half-assed attempt at a troll, or do you still genuinely not understand the distinction after it’s been explained to you a dozen times in this thread?
This is a mischaracterization of the term gender fluidity that improperly suggests that there is some large number of people who are going to go around entering different public restrooms every day. It has nothing to do with allowing the state to determine which restroom a person must use or the state forbidding a community from offering civil right protections for people whom the legislature irrationally fears.
Once more, you are trying to raise a non-issue into a case for extreme reactions, (with accompanying denial of legal protection). And once more without providing any scientific evidence to identify or support your concerns.
What crimes do you think you are preventing? A person who wanted to commit a sex crime under the guise of one gender or another is not going to be prevented by having a law that forbids a community from offering legal protections to people with actual biological and psychological situations. Are you planning to place police at the doors of every restroom, demanding to see birth certificates of everyone who enters?
How is this “protection” supposed to work? You are creating a terrible “solution” to a non-existent problem.
More ignorance displayed. A transvestite is one who chooses on specific occasions to cross dress. On other occasions such a person would dress just the way you would like to compel them to dress. You persistently use the word transvestite in these discussions when that is not the word that identifies the subject under discussion. It would appear, since you have been corrected on the subject, that you choose to deliberately use a word with a different meaning in order to deny the reality of gender identity and that is not a legitimate approach to this discussion.
Imagine a tall individual who undergoes penis construction surgery and gets pumped full of male hormones and sprouts a beard and otherwise transitions from a feminine appearance to a masculine one. Imagine I see this person following my daughter into the bathroom. Imagine I say, what the hell do you think you’re doing?
And imagine the response – growled at me in a deeper voice than I’ve got – is, hey, pal, I’d rather use the men’s room; but the law favored by DerekMichaels00 means I have to use the one that matches my birth certificate. I’d rather whip out my penis at a urinal instead; but while that used to be legal, now it’s a crime.
Heck, if that’s your issue, transgender persons are way down on the list of people you should be concerned about. In comparison, Evangelical Christians have massively more influence over your life by virtue of their influence over the various western governments.
How do you know? Not the penis, I mean: That’s pretty obvious. But I’ve certainly never had a chromosome test, and I doubt you have, either. I can guess that there’s a very high probability that I have a Y chromosome, but it’s possible that, through some quirk of biology, I don’t. See, biology is complicated and messy that way: Even though certain traits, like having a penis, having a Y chromosome, having elevated levels of testosterone and androgen, and growing facial hair are all correlated pretty strongly, they’re not correlated perfectly.
That’s a pretty interesting question. Derek and Arcite, there’s a tiny chance–let’s call it one in a million–that you lack a Y chromosome. Let’s say you get a genetic test and discover that you’re that one in a million. At that point, would you continue “pretending” to be a man, or would you adopt a feminine name, start wearing dresses, shave your legs, and use the lady’s room? Arcite, you disapprove of homosexuality; would you start dating men?
Glad to see it. Much better than handing out Warnings and closing the thread. When someone comes in to almost-but-not-quite troll on a topic, throw it to the Pit, rather than punishing people for perfectly understandable if technically rule-breaking reactions.