People's views regarding transpeople

[Adam]

Obviously getting beaten up for being trans is worse. But I still think there are forms of transphobia that don't involve violence. I mean people can still be racist and homophobic without actually punching someone or killng them

Yes, quite possibly, but I have yet to see any of it here.

Recently, I don't think so. In the past there has been some though, so the little things like pronouns do then make it seem like those views haven't changed. Rightly or wrongly

[midlifeaspie]

Wow, this is still going. 

I'll ask you again Rissy, why do you care?  The individual referenced has quit the site, and our other trans-gendered member is very capable of defending himself.  Is this some kind of cathartic moment for you?

[odeon]

Did you actually read and understand what I wrote? Not every member of the species will be able to reproduce, for various reasons, but nevertheless, the process of reproducing is the whole point. It's a binary thing, as you said, and you don't actually get to redefine that. You can say that you've always felt like a man or a woman and that's perfectly all right. You can't, however, change the definition to suit you because biologically it just won't be true.

Consider that botty-burp? Fine. You'll find that quite a few scientists researching the topic are equally "disrespectful".

How is that disrespectful, though? How is it disrespectful of me to refuse to accept that you wish to change those definitions, not because of any relevance to the basic science behind but because you wish to broaden the definition to allow for a tiny minority without the necessary biological qualifications?

I could say it's rather disrespectful of you to try to force your definitions on me.

I think this is bullshit myself (and yes, you are free to see it that way, I'm not trying to forcfe you to change that)

Man and woman are different to male and female. Saying someone is a woman doesn't mean they're saying they're biologically female. Obviously that is usually the case, but with someone who is a pre-op MTF, I can still view them as a woman and that doesn't mean I'm saying theyre biologically female

I mean if I was having a scientific discussion with someone, I wouldn't use the terms "man and woman" any more than I'd use "boy and girl." They're bot about biology imo. If I walk down the road, I see men and women, I have no idea if they've got a penis, ovaries, XX, XY, vagina, whatever.

As in "be a man and back up your words"? If that is what we measure against I can't see GA becoming one anytime soon. And that was a personal attack, btw, not transphobia or botty-burp.

BTW, I looked up "woman", just out of curiosity. The definition is "a female human", which is pretty much what I've been saying all along, so I guess we are not going to agree, no.

[Adam]

Did you actually read and understand what I wrote? Not every member of the species will be able to reproduce, for various reasons, but nevertheless, the process of reproducing is the whole point. It's a binary thing, as you said, and you don't actually get to redefine that. You can say that you've always felt like a man or a woman and that's perfectly all right. You can't, however, change the definition to suit you because biologically it just won't be true.

Consider that botty-burp? Fine. You'll find that quite a few scientists researching the topic are equally "disrespectful".

How is that disrespectful, though? How is it disrespectful of me to refuse to accept that you wish to change those definitions, not because of any relevance to the basic science behind but because you wish to broaden the definition to allow for a tiny minority without the necessary biological qualifications?

I could say it's rather disrespectful of you to try to force your definitions on me.

I think this is bullshit myself (and yes, you are free to see it that way, I'm not trying to forcfe you to change that)

Man and woman are different to male and female. Saying someone is a woman doesn't mean they're saying they're biologically female. Obviously that is usually the case, but with someone who is a pre-op MTF, I can still view them as a woman and that doesn't mean I'm saying theyre biologically female

I mean if I was having a scientific discussion with someone, I wouldn't use the terms "man and woman" any more than I'd use "boy and girl." They're bot about biology imo. If I walk down the road, I see men and women, I have no idea if they've got a penis, ovaries, XX, XY, vagina, whatever.

As in "be a man and back up your words"? If that is what we measure against I can't see GA becoming one anytime soon. And that was a personal attack, btw, not transphobia or botty-burp.

BTW, I looked up "woman", just out of curiosity. The definition is "a female human", which is pretty much what I've been saying all along, so I guess we are not going to agree, no.

I'm not going by dictionaries, no. I'm going by usage, which ultimately dictates dictionary definitions.

Would you consider a baby a "woman", just because she's a female human?

[odeon]

Wow, this is still going. 

I'll ask you again Rissy, why do you care?  The individual referenced has quit the site, and our other trans-gendered member is very capable of defending himself.  Is this some kind of cathartic moment for you?

The individual referenced is milking this thread for all it's worth so methinks the individual is attempting to redefine more than just reproductive binarism.

[odeon]

Did you actually read and understand what I wrote? Not every member of the species will be able to reproduce, for various reasons, but nevertheless, the process of reproducing is the whole point. It's a binary thing, as you said, and you don't actually get to redefine that. You can say that you've always felt like a man or a woman and that's perfectly all right. You can't, however, change the definition to suit you because biologically it just won't be true.

Consider that botty-burp? Fine. You'll find that quite a few scientists researching the topic are equally "disrespectful".

How is that disrespectful, though? How is it disrespectful of me to refuse to accept that you wish to change those definitions, not because of any relevance to the basic science behind but because you wish to broaden the definition to allow for a tiny minority without the necessary biological qualifications?

I could say it's rather disrespectful of you to try to force your definitions on me.

I think this is bullshit myself (and yes, you are free to see it that way, I'm not trying to forcfe you to change that)

Man and woman are different to male and female. Saying someone is a woman doesn't mean they're saying they're biologically female. Obviously that is usually the case, but with someone who is a pre-op MTF, I can still view them as a woman and that doesn't mean I'm saying theyre biologically female

I mean if I was having a scientific discussion with someone, I wouldn't use the terms "man and woman" any more than I'd use "boy and girl." They're bot about biology imo. If I walk down the road, I see men and women, I have no idea if they've got a penis, ovaries, XX, XY, vagina, whatever.

As in "be a man and back up your words"? If that is what we measure against I can't see GA becoming one anytime soon. And that was a personal attack, btw, not transphobia or botty-burp.

BTW, I looked up "woman", just out of curiosity. The definition is "a female human", which is pretty much what I've been saying all along, so I guess we are not going to agree, no.

I'm not going by dictionaries, no. I'm going by usage, which ultimately dictates dictionary definitions.

Yes, which is why dictionaries still go with that awful binarism.

Would you consider a baby a "woman", just because she's a female human?

Guess what a "girl" is.

[Adam]

What I'm saying is that these things change as language evolves

When I hear people talking about "men and women", they're not talking about biology. When they're talking about biology they use "male and female"

And yes obviously there will be plenty of examples of people doing otherwise, but generally, that is the case

[Adam]

Although I dunno why we're even discussing this

[odeon]

I know what you are saying. I just disagree with you on the when and the what and the how.

[Adam]

and the who and the way and the where?

[odeon]

and the who and the way and the where?

Not the where. I think we both agree on the dictionary.

['andersom']

Soph has a good point here. DNA will not change. But, DNA does not prescribe high heels and lacy bras. That's social femininity.

Wasn't in China under Mao Zedong, where they wanted to get rid of all of that. Can be forced on people. Doesn't change the reproduction, but sure changes the social roles.


Yes, nature did fuck up somewhere when a kid knows it is the wrong gender. Fixing the thing in the brain is a lot more dangerous and will have a much higher mortality rate than changing the social and physical settings to the brain. That still is a hell of a way to go.

[Adam]

Yes, nature did fuck up somewhere when a kid knows it is the wrong gender. Fixing the thing in the brain is a lot more dangerous and will have a much higher mortality rate than changing the social and physical settings to the brain. That still is a hell of a way to go.

This is something I've tried saying before. At first, to a lot of people, fixing the brain seems like less work than fixing the body, but when you think about it, it's definitely the other way round

I'd rather go through all the shit of hormones and surgery than change my brain. This kinda comes down to my views on the difference between who and what someone is though.

[odeon]

Soph has a good point here. DNA will not change. But, DNA does not prescribe high heels and lacy bras. That's social femininity.

Wasn't in China under Mao Zedong, where they wanted to get rid of all of that. Can be forced on people. Doesn't change the reproduction, but sure changes the social roles.


Yes, nature did fuck up somewhere when a kid knows it is the wrong gender. Fixing the thing in the brain is a lot more dangerous and will have a much higher mortality rate than changing the social and physical settings to the brain. That still is a hell of a way to go.

I'm not sure. Considering what humans are like, fixing the brain will probably be far less dangerous in the long run. I am fully expecting them to be able to "fix" autism in a few decades, tops, and I suspect "fixing" the gender issue won't take longer.

Mind, I'm not saying that they should or if it's "right", whatever that means, I'm just saying that changing the society and physical settings will probably be far more costly.

[Adam]

But I don't think it's something that would ever be simple enough to fix just like that. It would mean really altering your brain.

Surely changing the exterior (the "shell") makes more sense than fucking around with the brain

Also I would more expect it to be that a trans person was "meant" to be the sex they identify as, rather than "meant" to identify as the sex they are