How was that humiliating? Unless you were attempting to “prove” a point by citing a belief you had that was in error, there was nothing humiliating about that exchange.
You need to read Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, (or even some Zane Grey), where the protagonists are quite likely to break down in tears when they are not attempting to lop off someone’s head or drill them with a .45. Similarly, the “emotional control” that appears in so much Victorian literature (and continued through much of the 20th century), was pretty much an aberration in English-speaking countries. It would appear that such “control” was specific to very particular sub-cultures rather than to society. Even at the height of the period to which you would return, Latin American machismo, Japanese Bushido, and similar cultural displays were considered extreme in the U.S.
I am afraid that this comes across as petty whining that the next generation did not have it as rough as you did. You changed your behavior under pressure from abusive actions taken against you and now you are upset that subsequent generations may not have to suffer the same persecution you suffered simply for being human.
You are not describing standards; you are describing prejudices. And faced with a society that still includes a very large number of people who share your attitudes, one might well describe Jenner’s actions as bravery.
Actually, the “standards” that you embrace tolerated, (not to say promoted), spousal abuse, the physical and sexual abuse of children, the harassment of women in places of employment, and a number of other actions that we no longer tolerate, actually taking steps to make (or finally enforce) laws against them.
Do you have any evidence that the military is not promoting physical fitness, today? Do you have examples of people in the military whining that fitness was not fair?
You are now back to the “it’s not fair” argument that does your position no favors. Beyond that, you have confused issues of professionalism with issues of human psychology. Unless you have evidence that a transgender person would have a problem firing an M4 at a foe or releasing a Hellfire at an enemy tank, you are simply expressing your distaste for a human situation in irrelevant terms of accepted behavior.
Had you begun this thread with this paragraph and refrained from inserting your misguided and erroneous views of sexuality and behavior, you might have actually had a decent thread. I suspect that the odd views that you have that equate unnecessary conformity in one’s personal life with societal standards and the way that you lump so many unrelated views into your beliefs may have already poisoned the well, here.
We have standards. Having standards is good. Some standards change over time. (Beating children with emotional problems is no longer considered a valid response to their illnesses.) Some of the traits that you have offered as standards are little more than prejudices backed by illogical social convention and abuse–abuse that you have suffered and now want to inflict on others.
I actually feel some sympathy for you in the way you describe your own childhood and young adult life. Being bullied and teased for not being athletic or “manly enough” is mostly a forgotten standard. It is no longer overlooked by teachers staff or coaches in my area. I coached both my kids sporting teams through until late middle school and the kids never teased or bullied the less skilled kids. They and I encouraged every skill level. A point earned by a kid with less skills was much more celebrated than a point earned by an above average player. But an above average player was celebrated much higher for showing leadership or pulling off a skill he’d been practicing.
The virtues you described such as integrity and courage, are much more deeply rooted than are “standards.” And are no less more important or recognized than I assume they have ever been.
Standards are changing, at a societal level. You are experiencing some level of discomfort because you don’t like the new standards. Many other people are experiencing some level of discomfort when encountering YOUR standard. your standard demonstrably causes harm. Consider the suicide rates of trans individuals. The standard of accepting transgender rights causes NO HARM.
You may be overlooking the fact that the “existing value system” you want to remain in force is an evolution of a prior “existing value system” that someone like you many years ago wanted to remain in force. That old system gradually evolved into our current system, and continues to evolve.
There actually is some evidence that transgender people do, in fact, have a structural difference in their brain vs. people who are not transgender. For better or worse, this structure can only be seen via autopsy and, because transgender people are only a small percentage of people and even fewer of them donate their brains to science this is not absolutely proven as the cause of the disorder, BUT -
IF someone could provide you proof that transgender people really do have an actual, visibly different brain structure than people who are not transgender would that have any effect on your viewpoint?
Well, yes - because a non-trivial number of transgender people who are not able to transition kill themselves. Yeah, you wouldn’t kill yourself because you can’t have a Ferrari, but some of these folks will (and do) kill themselves over this issue.
That’s why it’s so important.
So… is it more important to you that people conform to your standards, or that they NOT commit suicide?
I don’t understand it on an emotional, visceral level either, but once I started to realize that this is an issue people do literally kill themselves over I started to re-consider my views on the subject. I may not feel so strongly on the subject but they do.
Well, I’m sort of glad you’re struggling with the idea rather than accepting it as right without question.
Me, I’m from more of a “if no one gets hurt what’s the problem?” stance. There’s a lot of stuff I don’t like or disagree with but I acknowledge that other people aren’t me and as long as no one gets hurt I don’t have a right to impose my preferences on others. That doesn’t mean I’m a turn the other cheek sort - my view on self-defense have been sharply criticized at times in the past on this forum - I just don’t condone violence in very many circumstances. Probably far fewer than you.
I’m sure you realize that this is something personal to you. Most people, I think it’s fair to say, don’t think people who push some limits of societal expectations deserve to be treated as a nonentity or someone to be literally attacked. It’s progress, or it’s not. But the history of the world is replete with boundary testing. Some people were Protestant when societal expectations (and law) required them to be Catholic, and vice versa. People at that time thought such people “deserved punishment.” Most of us today, don’t think so. Freedom has become a new societal value, that would have been unrecognizable in centuries past.
The civil rights movement in the U.S. is a more recent example.
Now we also have better acceptance of LGBT issues, and eventually, more understanding and knowledge will prevail. You don’t personally have to think it’s a good thing, but you might keep your blood pressure under control if you embrace a bit of change.
I’m going to address this point and be very polite and hope that you read it and take it to heart.
On my radio show in December, the highest ranking openly transgender military officer that I know of in the world “came out” during a special 1-hour segment I did on military service. She is a newly-promoted 1-star general with more than 20 years of experience, including many combat citations. (I believe Secretary Ash Carter, who I have communicated with FTR, is going to highlight her service this May (but I’m not certain)). With her in my studio was a retired Lt. Colonel who served in combat in Gulf 1 and 2, and a Staff Sergeant who served honorably for 8 years. A good friend of mine was an Army Captain (Cavalry), another was a Sergeant in the Air Force, and another a Master Sergeant who was wounded in combat so badly she was discharged. Three others I know of served in the Navy, one a Petty Officer who unusually saw combat and was wounded severely in a terror attack against US servicemen, where she shot and killed two of the attackers.
All of them transgender women. All of them brave and who served honorably.
Think for a minute on this. Why are you pissed off at them? Was their honorable service, and that of thousands of transgender volunteer servicemen and women not what you would want? These are people who stepped up to the bar and said “I want to serve my country,” and did so with dignity and bravery.
Maybe you’re pissed off at an abstract concept - transgender people in the military. Maybe you’re thinking of someone in a tube top and heels with a rifle, I don’t know. But think instead of the individual service people.
All they ask is that they serve as their proper mental gender. They don’t want to shirk duty; on the contrary, they want to serve! The captain, one sergeant, and one naval person I mentioned above were specifically thrown out of the military - despite flawless service records - simply because it was discovered they were transgender.
Where is the honor in that? Aren’t you pissed off that good and honorable men and women are being thrown out of the service based on their gender identity? How does that help this nation?
I’m seeing a pathological intolerance of uncertainty / ambiguity. The Standards People seem to take personally the actual, real, observable and persistent range of human behavior and expression; as some sort of disloyalty.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of standards. But how does it benefit a society to deliberately weaken itself by irrationally hindering the liberty of others who have certain intrinsic traits if those traits aren’t actually harming others?
Human beings are tremendously diverse. Allowing such diversity strengthens society by allowing as many people as possible to contribute whatever try can in whatever way they can. Maximizing every individual’s potential maximizes society’s potential.
Enforcing conformity through shunning or violent suppression harms that individual and also harms society.
Why is technological development proceeding so fast? Because we have unlocked the potential of so many more people by removing unnecessary and harmful “standards.” Which societies are lagging behind? The ones that are lagging behind in unshackling the potential of more individuals.
Even when we decide that some standards must remain in place because they benefit both individuals and society, we should still view how we enforce those standards with the same emphasis on overall benefit.
Is the best way to treat transgressors as “nonentities” and literally pummel them into submission? Or is there some other way to approach the problem that brings more benefits?
What is the role, purpose be benefit of “punishment” in general? How do we create a system of punishment that maximizes benefits and minimizes harms?
Good question. There are some abhorrent choices, assuming we can make any choice at all of course. I don’t think that choices should necessarily be excused which is one reason I support criminal and civil penalties for various behaviors that society has deemed necessary.
But for religion? I’m not one that likes to draw a hard line between ideology and religion. I suppose for most religions I wouldn’t care. But if a religion were to develop and be widely adopted that required the members to behave in a manner that clearly is incompatible with the vast majority of societal mores and is violent and dangerous I wouldn’t have a problem with it being smushed or sanctioned.
If it’s any comfort to you, there’s a good chance that being prone to develop diversity in our value systems as well as in our other characteristics is one of the things that crucially helped humans survive as a species. And it is fundamentally enabled by our vitally important capacity to reason and adapt, as well as our ability to generalize from small (sometimes too small) amounts of evidence.
Everywhere groups of humans have gone, they have constantly been encountering new circumstances and creating new expectations and standards of behavior based on their inferences from their experiences. “Don’t eat the yellow berries.” “Hungry women are less successful at growing babies.” “The people on the other side of that hill are very unfriendly.”
So what we end up with is an endless stream of human behavioral standards that are taken very seriously by those who practice them, but which are to a large extent arbitrary or based on overgeneralizations, and which are consequently subject to frequent and erratic change. That’s just part of the messy complexity of being human, and I don’t think there’s much we can do about it.
What you are wishing for—a universal and immutable set of behavioral standards—would be sort of the human cognitive equivalent of monocropping. Everybody would be conditioned to the same behavioral norms and everybody would be very resistant to modifying those norms. That kind of lack of adaptability sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
As well as the excellent points made above, another thing to note is that asking “What’s wrong with…?” is a classic burden of proof switch (not necessarily a conscious one…I think the OP’s question is genuine).
I think the opposite question of why we have particular standards is the better one here.
Some aspects of “manliness” are good to promote: like doing something brave to save someone else’s life. Or overcoming one’s fears and limitations the way the OP did in his youth.
But there’s no good reason to restrict such standards to males only. Women can be brave too and society benefits from allowing them to be. Nor should it be tied to how someone dresses or speaks or whatever. There’s no good reason to impinge on people’s liberty in that way.
I’d say what standards are valuable depend on the state of a society. In the modern USA we have the luxury of overwhelming military force that can keep out any conventional invader. We don’t need to worry about manpower relative to an enemy as we have higher productivity. These sort of advantages allows behavior that may be counterproductive for more marginal societies.
Maybe it would help if you thought of transgendered people like left-handed people. Being left-handed isn’t a choice, it’s just a quirk of neurological wiring. But writing with your left hand is a choice. Left handed people can absolutely choose to write with their right hand. In fact, not all that long ago, a lot of educational institutions forced left handed kids to write with their other hand. Because the “standard” was that people write with their right hand.
Except, if you’re left handed, no matter how much you choose to write with your right hand, you’re never going to be as good as with your left. It’s always going to be awkward, and uncomfortable, because you’re just not wired to write with that hand. And, the major thing here is, there’s no reason to force people to write with their other hand. There’s absolutely no benefit to it. It just produced a generation of left-handed people with shitty handwriting and a grudge against their teachers for enforcing such a stupid standard.
That’s exactly the situation for transgendered person. For what ever reason, for some quirk of neurological reasoning, they’re not comfortable as the gender they’re born as. It feels wrong to them. For a lot of them, so wrong that they end up taking their own lives. Now, we can enforce a standard of “If you’re born with a penis, you are fundamentally a man and must always act in these following ways that we have defined as ‘manly.’” But - and this is the really important thing, here - there’s no reason to do that. Like the idea that everyone has to write with the same hand, there’s absolutely no reason everyone has to express their gender the same way. Letting people who were born male wear dresses and call themselves with female names harms no one. So why not let them? Why hew to a standard that serves no purpose - especially when following to it causes so much harm to transgendered people?
The problem you have here is that biology is messy, and does not always fit neatly into the categories we’ve invented to describe it. Are you familiar with the concept of intersex people? This isn’t a political identity, it’s a medical condition where people are born with sexual characteristics of both genders. As in, externally they have a penis, but internally they’ve got ovaries. Or androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which a person is born with XY chromosomes, but their bodies don’t respond to androgen, and so they develop looking like women, including their external genitalia. The condition is not detectable by an external examination.
Male and female are not always the tidy little boxes we like to think of them as. Some people don’t fit cleanly into one or the other. Some people appear to fit better into one, but actually belong in the other. Sometimes, a woman is born with a penis. It’s just something that happens.
Is it wrong to lie to the police?
Is it wrong to lie to the police if you’re in Nazi occupied Europe, and they’re asking you if you know where any Jews are?
There are very few moral absolutes. Life is an endless succession of compromises and gray areas. Trying to fit everything into black and white is only going to make you miserable in the long run.
There’s nothing wrong with having standards. What’s wrong is thinking your standards are better than anyone else’s and that everyone should meet your standards while you have no obligation to meet anyone else’s standards.
They usually develop not only as women but exceptionally beautiful women with very feminine features. Because, unlike women without this condition who do have normal androgen profiles, these women have just about zero testosterone available, as their bodies are unable to use the testosterone in them that was intended to be used to create male characteristics.