When one’s argument boils down to the “cutting off your penis is the same as cutting off your arm” trope…I don’t even know what to think. The facts are painfully well known that gender transition is not cutting of one’s penis, it’s a multi-year process of psychological, hormonal, and other treatment which results in changes to the entire body, the last one of which is typically GRS. It begs the question of why deliberately inflammatory statements like that even belong in a debate.
It’s certainly not deliberately inflammatory. The only reason an analog for BIID patients doesn’t exist is because people think it’s absurd. As in, that the people who have the condition are crazy, and thus can be marginalized. On it’s merits, there is not much different between the two “treatments”. Either way, the problem isn’t primarily the difference in treatment responses, it’s that one group expects their understanding of their own body to supplant society’s understanding of gender and sex, whereas the other does not. I am all for medical professionals doing whatever they think is best to mitigate suffering. I am less comfortable allowing anyone with a diagnosed condition to feel their reality should guide the law.
Which is changing, though slowly.
If it does, and society comes to agree with trans people, will your argument still hold water?
Who cares how they phrase the diagnosis? I sure don’t. The important thing is that treatment should be available to those who seek it, if there is a good reason to think that it is the only thing that will help. That does not mean that every doctor should be legally obligated to perform every surgery requested of them. They are not, even now. It means only that a doctor who chooses to perform such a surgery after a well-considered determination that it is warranted should be allowed to do so without legal penalty.
If George Clooney gets some kind of magical surgery that makes him appear black, then of course he can be discriminated against for being black. I don’t understand what your point is here.
I kinda want to bookmark this thread for the next time a discussion of “privilege” comes up. Not as an attack on others, but because it makes me realize, in a totally nonthreatening way, how privileged I am as a cisgender person not to have to deal with these issues and not to have had to think about them. My main role here is to sit down, shut up, and pay attention to folks like Johanna, with her direct experience; Una Persson, with her indirect expertise; and even SevenCL, with her ornery and idiosyncratic rage about how she and others get treated.
If you’ve not spent your life dealing with these issues, folks, it may behoove you to spend more time reading and less time writing; it’s an opportunity, if you’ll take it, to fight your own ignorance. Your privilege is that you don’t have to.
There is a simple and fair solution to this ‘problem’.
We accept the right for nude saunas to offer sex-segregated facilities, since no one is being disadvantaged by it, and it would be an affront to poor women not to. Any demand for non-segregated facilities will surely be met by the free market, or by public provision if necessary.
We accept the right of nude sauna managements to restrict entry to the ladies’ nude sauna to those that their nude lady customers are collectively happy to accept.
Everyone else who wants a nude sauna can use the other one. Depending on demand, nude sauna managers might offer a range of alternative nude saunas.
Anyone who is too embarrassed to share a nude sauna with men, and who is rejected by the ladies’ sauna, accepts (and shouldn’t really have difficulty understanding) that the users of the ‘ladies’’ sauna are too embarrassed to share a sauna with them. They can do without if it is too embarrassing for them to share with the men.
Anyone who is too intimidated to share a nude sauna with men, really should understand that that applies doubly to the women who don’t want them in the ladies’ sauna. There should be rules to prevent harrasment, to allay any fears.
(Really, I’ve never seen so much misogynist crap spouted in the name of tolerance in my whole life as I’ve seen in this thread).
This is not simple. For example, under your proposal, if there’s a woman who has some bad surgery scars from her chemotherapy, can the collective will of the ladies ban her from the women’s sauna?
Ridiculous. That eliminates all psychiatric conditions.
My brains tells me I am able to fly…
If a night club can deny me entry for being fat, ugly, or dressed unfashionably, then why not this?
Didja miss the part where the person kicked out was (is) a transman kicked out of the men’s side of the spa?
Let’s assume that Sandwich would answer the way you would, and let’s further assume that rather than just playing Questions, you’d answered with a clear “yes.” Fair enough. Would it be okay for the collective will of the ladies also to ban black women from entering the sauna, if the ladies were mostly white?
No, I’m going to keep asking questions. Race is a suspect classification. Should every possible classification get the same protection as race? Should a night club be required to admit me?
I am a Dom and have been for decades, way prior to BDSM becoming somewhat mainstream/faddish – what do you you mean “as I term it”? Want respect? Give it back.
Other than that, appreciate your response. Much to mulch on.
Dom? BDSM? Mulch? I’m sorry, I don’t know what those terms mean. Are they some sort of ultra-politically-correct special snowflake indigo child cant or what’s going on there
I don’t know why you insist on bringing your silly internet pervo-jargon into this thread. What are you, some kind of Zionist?
I hope you show me some respect, because let me tell you mister i was into diapers before it was cool
No.
No.
Now that I’ve demonstrated how to answer questions, please give it a try.
Ones that have strong irrational prejudice attached to them should have.
I’m still asking questions. To both of your “nos” I ask why. What makes these classifications different from each other and what determines whether any one classification is more like race or more like ugly?
Lovely. Once you start answering some, I’ll return the favor.
There are fairly strong irrational prejudices against short people and ugly people. Being tall or attractive makes it far more likely that a person will be financially successful in life. What makes a person with horrible scars from cancer surgery different from an ugly person?
What is the benefit of pinning me down? I’m not ready to take any particular position on these questions. You on the other hand seem to have made up your mind. Why not allow me to understand your reasoning?