ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it means you have a penis and a y chromosome
and it means you use the bathroom marked "Men"
really - it's not that difficult
When our 'identity' is subjective...
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
it means you have a penis and a y chromosome
and it means you use the bathroom marked "Men"
really - it's not that difficult
But it is that difficult for those that desperately seek to claim a civil right from a declaration based upon their physcosis, emotions, & feelings rather than facts based upon science, biology, & physiology.
PureX
Well-known member
Sure, and if we were going into the hospital, that would be the more important aspect of defining our gender. But when we're deciding what clothing to wear, or what bathroom to use, biology is not the significant factor. Security and self-identification is.
But in the setting of a public bathroom, those "objective" characteristics aren't relevant. Whereas the more subjective characteristics, are.
And I am noting the irrationality of our doing that in this instance.
But that's not the situation being considered, here.
There is no bullet in this context.
By "works", I meant that the proposed 'truth' produces the result anticipated, via our limited and subjective experience and understanding of reality.
And it will mean absolutely nothing to us. It's only through our ongoing experience of our gender that being male or female will come to mean something to us. But we won't all experience gender uniformly. Most do, but not all. So it doesn't make logical sense to insist on treating gender as if we all DO experience it the same way (male or female in accordance with our genitalia).
Except for when we're in the hospital, all gender identification is personal.
But we aren't talking about burning rays and flying bullets. We talking about gender perception/conception and sef-identification. A women's restroom is not a gynecologist's office. We don't have to have female genitalia to enter. We simply have to be generally perceived as a woman. And there is bound to be some ambiguity, there.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
Civil rights are not based on science, physics, religion, or biology. They are based on the desire for fair and functional civil interaction. They are based on functional ethics, as much as anything.
PureX
Well-known member
To an idiot, I suppose everything looks simple.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and it's retards like you who think it makes for a functional society by basing civil rights on physcosis, emotions, & feelings :dizzy:
In what way? How many people that you interact with on a routine basis actually see or care about your genitals? Maybe more than none, but probably not by a lot.
Some of the people in a trans person's life will undoubtedly have a problem with their transition. But does it make more sense to try to work on the expectations of non-trans people, or to tell trans people that they're going to have to live a lie for the sake of people whose ignorance they might otherwise clash with? I would say the former, almost entirely.
That's mixing the concepts that we're distinguishing. There's biological sex and gender identity, but not biological gender.
Transgender people require a distinction that we aren't accustomed to making so clearly, that between sex and gender.
So, you'd prefer a permanent state of self-dissatisfaction and external disapproval versus a transition that has a good chance of improving both because some people might object to the transition itself?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
Sure. There isn't a lot of clear evidence for why either occurs. But homosexuality is a lot more common.
See, we differ here. Sexual identity has little to do with using the bathroom, which is why most of us have used the other gender restroom where circumstance necessitated (usually with a lookout). So, if my presence didn't make a woman nervous on principle I'd have no problem with using a facility that didn't distinguish between genders. But I understand why it might. They don't know what's on my mind. What they know is that if something untoward is they're at a real and endangering disadvantage. Doesn't offend me. The same thing applies with the real underlying concern regarding biological males who may consider themselves to be something else.
I'd say you're asserting it, which is a bit different.
We've been fairly general. If you're talking about bathrooms now/still, supra.
Well, you just particularlized the context. I was speaking to the point that there are material, objective truths that aren't dependent on how we feel or think about them.
It means something in terms of how we are perceived and how that impacts others.
Insist on treating gender how? Mostly that's an internal construct, isn't it? Or do you mean the bathroom thing again? If so, supra.
Well, we've been speaking to the distinctions between subjective and objective reality for a bit. Perception is largely born of objective identification, which is why some people are occasionally fooled by a skilled drag queen, by way of.
No, it's a public accommodation. And opening it to biological males who purport to consider themselves female in a subjective fashion raises a risk of endangerment, disquiet and not irrational apprehension that is by no means necessary in the service of a subjective notion.
And needing to change the entire comfort complex and ideology of a country, and change the infrastructure of all restrooms in the country, just to accommodate the 1% of the 1% of society who may or may not have had a spat in a restroom one time in their life- means that there is something very dysfunctional going on- and it ain't conservatives. You all are abusing the concept of 'civil rights' to throw your biases on other people, it really has little to do with transgenders themselves and you know it. There's no way in the world, of all the problems we have, that you all could sit there with a straight face and act like it's not simply about an ulterior agenda.
Reinforced by the fact that I've stated this argument several times over and none of you apparently have the ability to say otherwise
lain:
Maybe I should turn it around and ask you for clarification. What expectations do you have in mind?
And along with that, do you think the expectations are more about strangers and acquaintances or about friends and family?
But the answer to your question is very few.
I don't know. It just seems strange to say that society puts a burden of expectations on transgender people and you're going to help them by make them change their sex, another burden, though a temporary one. And, depending on the quality of the transition/surgery, they're still going to be forever known as a transgender person which still comes with some stigma. However, if the options are be dissatisfied and stigmatized or be satisfied and stigmatized then it's not surprising people would want to try to change their sex.
I don't think so, not for expectations. There is male and there is female and there are roles traditionally assigned to each. That's the reason transgender people need to transition in the first place.
What I'm saying is that I'm not sure how much external disapproval is really altered by transitioning.
I'm trying to get at what the expectations are. Cross-dressing seems to me to be the most obvious part of it. If you meet a transgender person (but don't know it) then in what way would they fail to meet your expectations? Of course it would depend on the extent of your interaction, which comes back to my previous question about distant relations vs near relations.
If they are both caused by the same phenomenon, it seems like transgender would be a more extreme version of it.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I was reading medical journal articles about intersex individuals, first-person accounts about their treatment by medical professionals, and the lifelong deleterious physical and psychological effects on them. How the doctors would decide an intersex infant's sex, do the related surgeries and treat them for years afterwards as medical oddities, subjecting them to regular and numerous genital exams during their childhood. One doctor counseled the parents to submit the birth certificate for a boy, then did the surgery to make the baby a girl, then the parents could say that they'd made a mistake on the birth certificate. This person grew up as a girl, not knowing the full extent of the medical history (secrecy was common), and now identifies as what he always thought he was, which was a boy. That's just one way in which this is much more complex than "some pervert wants to dress like a woman so he can use the women's restroom."
The expectations that people have around gender: which genders are allowed which physical characteristics, how they are expected to behave, and yes, to a certain extent which restrooms they use.
I think that depends on the person. Both.
Ok, thanks for that.
I think that's a pretty strange way to frame it. They seek treatment. Doctors help them change their appearance to match their identity. I just tell people that I think they should be allowed flexibility in dealing with sex and gender norms.
That's not a given. For some, it's an easily kept secret. And shouldn't they decide whether that risk is worth taking for themselves? I don't see this as justifying erecting barriers to what is already a difficult process.
Or maybe they could just be accepted. I don't think that's really such an unrealistic goal.
I think we may be getting bogged down in semantics a bit, but I'm not saying that gender is arbitrarily chosen. I'm just saying that self-identification defines it, as opposed to sex, which is defined by physical characteristics.
It might be greatly increased. But I think that misses the point, a bit. There are expectations, both internal and external, about how men and women look, behave, and think. The top priority, it seems to me, should be how the person in question feels about which set of expectations they conform to if either.
By "cross-dressing", are you referring to dressing as a member of their identified gender?
It's not really a term that makes sense in this context.
I don't think I'm quite understanding your point there.
I think it's a reasonable intuition.
PureX
Well-known member
All that needs to be changed is our attitude toward those who are different from us. And that doesn't cost anyone anything.
Functionally speaking, this is a complete non-issue, as the actual instances are so rare, and so unidentifiable as to be non-existent. The 'huff' isn't about transgenders actually using a restroom, it's about the idea of them using a restroom. That idea represents a change and conservatives just hate the whole idea of change. So they fight it regardless of how insignificant that actual proposed change, would be. Especially when the proposed change is perceived to effect their sense of entitlement. As is the case, here.
It is healthy and proper for a society to challenge it's own biases. You may not like it, but the fact is that it's a means of positive social progress.
PureX
Well-known member
It has everything to do with which bathroom we use. The little emblem on the door does not represent a penis and a vagina. It represents a figure in a dress, and a figure in suit. And we have to decide which of these represent us when choosing which restroom door to enter.
We were discussing the philosophical implications of social change. But you appeared to be done with that.
That is true, but irrelevant in this particular instance. As in many others. Since we humans don't know or control those "objective truths".
Yes. And in this instance the impact will be to assault their biases and make them feel uncomfortable. And that is healthy for them and for all of us, even though they won't 'like it'.
"Objective reality" is an illusion. That's why we are so often fooled when we think we know it. All reality comes to us via our limited physical and mental capacities. We experience it, and conceptualize it as part of that experience. And thus we believe we "know it". But because our perceptual and conceptual capabilities are so limited, what we think we "know" is very often inaccurate.
For us, "objective reality" is an inaccurate extrapolation. We can't ignore it, because we need it to check ourselves and our "subjective" concepts of reality. But neither should we place such an extrapolated, inaccurate concept above all else. That's really the point I was making about "objectivity".
There is no added danger in transgender males using a woman's restroom. There is only danger in their using a men's restroom, because biased and frightened men tend to react violently. As to the "disquiet", I don't really care. It's minimal, and self-induced, and the presence of the transgender male (on the rare occasion one could even be detected) lends woman the healthy opportunity to confront their irrational and biased fear and overcome it. Just as we all have to do with so many other aspects of our lives.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's because we aren't all English speakers or literate. But the stereotypical haircut and garb communicate well enough that one is for people with one set of equipment, etc. It's not really about how you see yourself, but about what's covered by the garb and typically indicated by the choices evidenced in the sign.
And not everyone at an amusement park under a given height is a child, but most are.
No idea why you think the latter. And we've discussed a number of points, regarding the former. I tend to be easy when it comes to a lead, so long as we don't get so far afield that I find myself looking for roadmaps at some point.
Looks like we're trying, or at least to control how those facts are relevant.
In this case by case, if we're talking about the bathroom, I don't agree, though not all biases or discomfort are unreasonable or unhealthy. If I look about me and realize I've driven into a seedy neighborhood I'm probably hitting the doorlocks and getting out of there as quickly and legally as I can.
It really isn't. I've given you two fairly strong examples. The bullet that takes your life won't be dissuaded by your opinion. Neither will your own skin if you stand int he sun too long without protection.
It can be, but needn't be and, I suspect, isn't very for most of us in most instances not involving an oasis.
I'd say it depends. If some angry fellow says "I'm going to kill you!" and produces the apparent means to do it, I'm by and large going to credit myself with understanding the objective reality of the situation and either produce a weapon or find the nearest escape route.
There unquestionably is as an operation of logic, though not every male who appears to be of that group necessarily will be of that group, widening the potential for unfortunate consequence, expanding the danger.
So you see the damage a man can pose in those confines if motivated. You just can't see beyond the one stall on the point...curious.
Else, that apprehension makes the better responsive argument, to my mind. Maybe what's needed is what we have in most theaters here have, a "family" facility that's gender neutral and accommodates a single person at a time (or a person with children).
The last person I'd want to gauge a thing is a person who is indifferent to it.
According to you nearly everything is, so that's a neat trick as diminishment goes.
As I noted when suggesting I'd be comfortable in a mixed restroom environment, the woman in that environment isn't irrational for being a little apprehensive and concerned that a fellow standing about six three and over two hundred pounds might prove a problem for her. I understand. So should you.
What's the parallel?
Thanks. I expected as much. But I think I misunderstood what you were getting at by asking how many people see or care about my genitals. The answer is still very few, but that's if we're talking direct or explicit thought about it. If we're talking about expectations then indirectly it might be more. I think what you meant is that expectations are based on outward appearance, not genitals. Is that right? Another factor is that when I picture a transgender person I still picture someone who is obviously a transgender person.
ok.
Accepted on which side? Because you said previously that you don't think it's realistic for society to accept transgender people without going through some sort of transition.
Well, 'self-identification' by itself says to me arbitrariness is at least possible. If you aren't saying that then what do you think governs it?
I think the underlying causes can be pretty important. I tried to do some reading on it. What's interesting is that one study showed that the brains of transgender people did look more like someone of their identified gender rather than their biological one and another one was about responsiveness to hormones being different.
Another interesting thing I came across is a 3rd gender that is recognized in Samoa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa'afafine
Yes, a member of their identified gender.
I meant that the more you interact with someone the more likely it could be that they might fail to meet expectations in some way.
I'm curious about why people desire to change. Is it more for themselves, more for their closer circle, or more for larger society? I understand that each person may give a different answer.
PureX
Well-known member
I was reading about a woman that has a physical condition that causes her to grow facial and body hair like a man. She is female in both gender and sex, but she has broad shoulders, a square jawline, and a '5 o-clock shadow' like a man.
I have no doubt that when she uses the woman's restroom some people believe she is a man in 'drag' and that she shouldn't be using the woman's restroom. But of course this woman would herself be very uncomfortable using the men's restroom, as she is not a man, and as the other men in the men's restroom would also think she's a man in 'drag'. And that could be dangerous.
Either way, she's likely to be harassed and insulted by people who assume she is a man in 'drag', and who fear, despise, and even hate men who dress in woman's cloths.
And that's really what all this is about. No one would know whether this woman is genitalically female or not. But that's not really the issue, anyway. The issue is LOOKING like a man in a dress, and being in the woman's restroom. Or LOOKING like a man in a dress, and being in the men's restroom. Or looking like a woman in any clothing, and being in the men's restroom.
It's all about looking "different", regardless of what sex one actually is (because no one knows that, anyway) or which restroom one uses. It's the LOOKING "DIFFERENT" that upsets people, and that they want to ban and 'punish' other people for.
And that's why I believe it's important, in this instance, to enforce non-discrimination laws, and make people face and overcome their fears and resentments about other people's gender differences.
I have no doubt that when she uses the woman's restroom some people believe she is a man in 'drag' and that she shouldn't be using the woman's restroom. But of course this woman would herself be very uncomfortable using the men's restroom, as she is not a man, and as the other men in the men's restroom would also think she's a man in 'drag'. And that could be dangerous.
Either way, she's likely to be harassed and insulted by people who assume she is a man in 'drag', and who fear, despise, and even hate men who dress in woman's cloths.
And that's really what all this is about. No one would know whether this woman is genitalically female or not. But that's not really the issue, anyway. The issue is LOOKING like a man in a dress, and being in the woman's restroom. Or LOOKING like a man in a dress, and being in the men's restroom. Or looking like a woman in any clothing, and being in the men's restroom.
It's all about looking "different", regardless of what sex one actually is (because no one knows that, anyway) or which restroom one uses. It's the LOOKING "DIFFERENT" that upsets people, and that they want to ban and 'punish' other people for.
And that's why I believe it's important, in this instance, to enforce non-discrimination laws, and make people face and overcome their fears and resentments about other people's gender differences.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the issue is that society has said "if you're a man and want to wear a dress, it's your right to do so"
which is, of course, just another example that society is comprised primarily of retards