People's views regarding transpeople

[Al Swearegen]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

[Callaway]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

[Parts]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

That's a scary though I would not wish on anyone,  well not on him at least

[Al Swearegen]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

It would be tragic.

I personally could not imagine getting my nutsack and dick removed. It brings tears to my eyes with the thought.

[Parts]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

It would be tragic.

I personally could not imagine getting my nutsack and dick removed. It brings tears to my eyes with the thought.

Just reading it is painful enough

[Squidusa]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

It would be tragic.

I personally could not imagine getting my nutsack and dick removed. It brings tears to my eyes with the thought.

Just reading it is painful enough

On the plus side at least there'd be no more inconvenient boners. 

[benjimanbreeg]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

It'd be more hilarious, rather than ironic.

[Pyraxis]

An attempt to avoid the TL;DR...

I believe I have consistently used "nature".

I am a firm believer in well-defined and consistent vocabulary, and what A et al are saying just isn't consistent. It's what they want, for all kinds of reasons, but it's not well-defined and it's not consistent. I'm saying that GA was born male and while he in later years has been working towards becoming a woman, that pronoun would, in my mind, not adequately describe the result because a "woman" is a "human female", biologically and genetically speaking, and that's not just the case.

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

As for the rest, you are missing part of my point. I am basically indifferent. If somebody I meet appears to be a woman and says she is, I am not going to require proof or doubt the statement or anything. I will accept it as a fact, according to the definitions I have outlined.

If, later, somebody shows that the woman in question is biologically a man, I would most likely remain indifferent and continue with the pronouns offered to me at that earlier point. I don't really care, see. My comments here are all about terminology and cases like GA's where I seem to be required to change my pronouns (that have been accepted and OK for years) or else I'm disrespectful and included in some fancy *new* definition using a word that I had to look up to know it exists in current urban terminology (but not, yet, in a printed dictionary).

You seem hell-bent on showing that I must have ulterior motives, that I'm really a bigot of some new and exciting definition, but I just don't think that is the case.

Have you considered how difficult it is to change social conditioning that's been instilled since birth? Of course GA used to exhibit masculine traits, and now as Kayleigh she is working to reprogram her brain to overcome the training and act in a way more aligned with her natural self. If you're having difficulty revising your mental concept, that task is exponentially more difficult from the inside. Not something to be undertaken on a whim, and an ongoing process.

Tell me why I should. What I'm talking about is an individual I learned to know on teh interwebs as a male, who identified himself as a male, and whose friends online identified him as a male. I used a set of pronouns when addressing him or talking about him, but there was no conscious effort on my part. Basically I was indifferent.

I am discussing a vocabulary, a terminology, that is consistent. I am in no way saying what anyone can or cannot do. Why do you think you link is relevant to what I am saying?

I'm in favour of a well-defined terminology, whatever that may be.

Because it is not inaccurate. It's not a spiritual discussion, simply a biological one. You are being PC, Pyraxis, and I have to say I'm a bit surprised.

Maybe I sound different because this is the first time I've tried to have a serious intellectual debate on Intensity.

I don't see how I'm being PC. I've never once called you bigot, transphobic, or cis-whatever-the-new-word-is. I don't know the PC terminology either, LOL! What I called you was a "crotchety old man" with "ridiculous antiquated views".

Sure, that's name-calling, but not out of character with the usual Intensity banter, IMO. I can even see why Kayleigh's blasting in here on a high horse wouldn't predispose you to seeing her POV. But make up your mind. If you don't want people to call you names, fine, but when I backed up my words with scientific sources, you also asked what the point was and whether I was "making you follow links for fun". What argument style are you looking for?

The essence of your argument seems to be that you want clear definitions for the terms male and female, yes? You said you were interested in finding out what pronouns were used for chimeras, but when I offered an answer, you asked what my point was. My point was to clarify the definition.

The reason I asked about mother nature and God is that nature can't have intentions unless it's an intelligent entity.

To me, going after a trans person's gender identity is seriously fighting dirty. That's why I don't do it, and why I was shocked to see that both you and Callaway did. (Schleed I've come to expect it from.) Hell, why do either of you even need to fight dirty? But whatever, I certainly can't stop it. I can however be vocal about my disgust.

That's another of my points here, if you want points. To make noise in defense of trans people. It's up to you how you respond to it.

[Rissy]

You don't have to. Godwin's Law:

That has no relevance. It's just a fun reference to throw around.

Any arguing of views can be called 'preaching,' even your argument. I'm objecting to the claim that I'm forcing you to act on my views, though. I'm picking at the views you force on others, but that is criticism, not the opinion that you should have my views.

Language changes, sure, but only when there is a need, not because a select few wish it to change. You'd have a better shot at it by being a sports journalist.

Also, when on the topic of science and objective evaluation, it is important to use an unambiguous language to the extent possible. The definitions I choose to follow are well established and have a firm foundation in science. Can you imagine what a biology class would be like if we were to follow your (lack of) definitions?

When discussing science, language is an important tool. I take it you are not dealing with either professionally on a daily basis?

There isn't even a need to change a lot of the language that gets changed, it just changes based on trends and culture. Pronouns are not evaluations and they're irrelevant to science. Names and placeholders for names are cultural. Your biology class strawman is flawed and irrelevant. I'm not arguing against physical classifications and I'm even suggesting the classifications are inadequate and need to be further broken down and explored. It seems to me that you are the one who wants to keep things simple because intersexuality isn't your problem. The difference in males and females are not just physical and are social too. The words woman, girl, man, boy, etc are not having their definition changed, they are being given extra definitions which apply to social use.

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

Elaborate please. You said main reason, not only reason. Also, tell me why reproduction is the meaning of existence.
How is your assumption not a personal view that you hold as obsolete? You criticise people for bringing up personal views as truth and trying to enforce them on others, but I can't see how you're any different.

On the contrary, the definitions I use are excellent for what they are for, recognising and detailing the human race. They are quite objective--there is no hidden agenda for science to study and describe human biology. The terminology used is there to be objective and unambiguous, to allow us to discuss the subject. If you want to discuss sociology, come up with terms suited for the purpose, but for this, as you say, human reproduction makes sense.

I half agree with you but you are mixing arguments. As I said, social usage of words can differ from physical classifications and words can have multiple meanings. I am criticising your stance for being too basic though and questioning you for holding your personal reverence of reproduction over others.

[Rissy]

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

I never accused you of trolling and it's easy for personal stances and actions to be disrespectful. Do you not believe you are disrespectful?

I guess my views on this is simply this.
If you are trans then Life is going to be fraught with difficulties. Difficulties not experienced by the average Joe Blow. I do not question the validity of this and do not contest it. It will be different to the difficulties that you face being an immigrant in a new country, being a person with an intellectual disability, being a gay, being a person with a sensory impairment, being a person with a psychological impairment or.....being someone on the spectrum.
For any of these "classes" of citizens in society, I do not contest or downplay the difficulties faced.
That said, the world will not shaped itself around you or make much in the way of fitting in with your difference. You have to basically get on with life and meet it head on regardless of the difficulties it throws at you.
Work, parenting, social relationships, dating, and countless other things in life will be constant trials. I don't think any of us here doubt that.
Making demands of a community to fit in with you is not cool. It is only going to ostracise and alienate you and exclude you.

The original post on this thread is evidence of the indifference of society. Is it fair? Nope. Is stamping your feet or waving your fists in rage going to fix it? Nope.
Perhaps best we can do is be a little tougher skinned and a little more willing to fight to defend our personal values and freedoms and at the same time accept life is life and it is not the walk in the park or joyous, wonderous thing of feelgood movies. Life is tough and demanding and choosing what and who to fight against is key. Fight the fight that are worth fighting and that you can win at.

I expect that with trans people that is fighting to protect the values of your identity. To rail against those that would seek to do you harm and be accepting of people who would seek not to do you harm. Fight to be comfortable in the skin you are in and with the understanding of what it is to be trans. I ought not be a me and the transpeople against the world. The world is rather big and transpeople are a rather small and insignificant part of that great world. The good news of course is that if you are trans you are also a number of other things that has fuck all to do with being trans. You are a member of a number of other classes be it race, creed, religion, career, or whatever. Look at the sum of your parts and you find the things in yourself that fit with others.

Transpeople are not, in my view, just people with a silly notion in their heads. Even were that the truth it would not really matter. People are people and it is the similarities and the other shared aspects of a human nature and condition that bind us. Interests, experiences and personality. This is where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. This is where when we say "We don't give a shit". It demands whilst trans may be something of great importance to you it may not be to us so find some aspect we share common ground and we will fit in and actually care and share.

That is just my belief.

I don't have a problem with this standpoint. That's the kind of thing I accept.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

If you want Kayleigh to go away, you really shouldn't bait her with a comment like this. You're just asking her to rage...

I also have to agree with Pyraxis' last post.

[renaeden]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html    

Could it not be a coincidence that so many people on the spectrum are "trans" and such?  Maybe cause of how AS has affected their life's, they've become confused about their personality's rather than their "gender".

That's a very interesting link, Benji.

It would be ironic if GA's first psychiatrist, the one who told him that his cross dressing and "trans stuff" was a learned behavior because of his sisters and he should stop reinforcing this himself by dressing as a woman, turns out to have actually been right after all.

Interesting? Well yeah it would. At the same time I would not wish it on the blowhard. I really dislike Kayleigh, just not that much

I certainly don't wish it on GA either, but I do wonder if he has really thought this through completely or if he started taking the estrogen on somewhat of a whim.  I think that there a good reason that Soph said that some places make you live as the gender you identify as for a year without the benefit of hormones or gender surgery.  Wouldn't it be awful if he grew breasts and got his male parts lopped off and then wished that he hadn't?

Well she has breasts and doesn't regret that at all. She had to see a psychiatrist and an endocrinologist a number of times before being prescribed hormones so it definitely wasn't on a whim that she started taking them.

[odeon]

You don't have to. Godwin's Law:

That has no relevance. It's just a fun reference to throw around.

Actually it has relevance because your credibility went down the drain with that post. Admittedly you had little before, but any Nazi reference is a sign of desperation.

Any arguing of views can be called 'preaching,' even your argument. I'm objecting to the claim that I'm forcing you to act on my views, though. I'm picking at the views you force on others, but that is criticism, not the opinion that you should have my views.

Language changes, sure, but only when there is a need, not because a select few wish it to change. You'd have a better shot at it by being a sports journalist.

Also, when on the topic of science and objective evaluation, it is important to use an unambiguous language to the extent possible. The definitions I choose to follow are well established and have a firm foundation in science. Can you imagine what a biology class would be like if we were to follow your (lack of) definitions?

When discussing science, language is an important tool. I take it you are not dealing with either professionally on a daily basis?

There isn't even a need to change a lot of the language that gets changed, it just changes based on trends and culture. Pronouns are not evaluations and they're irrelevant to science.

So that's a "yes, I'm not dealing with language or science on a professional daily basis"? Do try to answer at least some of my points.

Names and placeholders for names are cultural. Your biology class strawman is flawed and irrelevant. I'm not arguing against physical classifications and I'm even suggesting the classifications are inadequate and need to be further broken down and explored. It seems to me that you are the one who wants to keep things simple because intersexuality isn't your problem. The difference in males and females are not just physical and are social too. The words woman, girl, man, boy, etc are not having their definition changed, they are being given extra definitions which apply to social use.

You are right; it is not my problem. The definitions I use are clear and unambiguous. It takes more than a vanishing minority to change them. You don't even have a clear idea of what changes there should be; as Al pointed out you are constantly moving the goalposts.

Again I'd suggest you to use definitions that do not clash with the existing ones.

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

Elaborate please. You said main reason, not only reason.

You want all of them? Watch Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. It's as good an answer as anything. Or let's just say "42".

Also, tell me why reproduction is the meaning of existence.

Simple biology. That is what we do. For the religious discussion, visit your nearest church, mosque, or other preferred institution.

How is your assumption not a personal view that you hold as obsolete? You criticise people for bringing up personal views as truth and trying to enforce them on others, but I can't see how you're any different.

Ah, there's the "scientists have belief systems just as us Christians" argument. Again. I didn't come up with any of the definitions I use. For a basic flowers-and-bees discussion, start here.

On the contrary, the definitions I use are excellent for what they are for, recognising and detailing the human race. They are quite objective--there is no hidden agenda for science to study and describe human biology. The terminology used is there to be objective and unambiguous, to allow us to discuss the subject. If you want to discuss sociology, come up with terms suited for the purpose, but for this, as you say, human reproduction makes sense.

I half agree with you but you are mixing arguments. As I said, social usage of words can differ from physical classifications and words can have multiple meanings. I am criticising your stance for being too basic though and questioning you for holding your personal reverence of reproduction over others.

So I've brought you halfway over? Good. Now read Wikipedia and make that remaining leap on your own. I don't want to keep you busy with repeating yourself, see, when you have a callout to direct your attention to.

[Al Swearegen]

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

I never accused you of trolling and it's easy for personal stances and actions to be disrespectful. Do you not believe you are disrespectful?

I am sure he can be and i am sure he has been disrespectful on occasions on I2. I am sure the same could be said of everyone here. Specifically, and in this instance? I really don't think so.
In fact Odeon I think has been rather gentle with you too and more considerate and respectful than I thought he would be.
What you have got from everyone here in this thread and most others is respect and rather light banter by all and sundry. Were you expecting something else? What has Kayleigh been telling you about us? 

[odeon]

An attempt to avoid the TL;DR...

I believe I have consistently used "nature".

I am a firm believer in well-defined and consistent vocabulary, and what A et al are saying just isn't consistent. It's what they want, for all kinds of reasons, but it's not well-defined and it's not consistent. I'm saying that GA was born male and while he in later years has been working towards becoming a woman, that pronoun would, in my mind, not adequately describe the result because a "woman" is a "human female", biologically and genetically speaking, and that's not just the case.

It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.

As for the rest, you are missing part of my point. I am basically indifferent. If somebody I meet appears to be a woman and says she is, I am not going to require proof or doubt the statement or anything. I will accept it as a fact, according to the definitions I have outlined.

If, later, somebody shows that the woman in question is biologically a man, I would most likely remain indifferent and continue with the pronouns offered to me at that earlier point. I don't really care, see. My comments here are all about terminology and cases like GA's where I seem to be required to change my pronouns (that have been accepted and OK for years) or else I'm disrespectful and included in some fancy *new* definition using a word that I had to look up to know it exists in current urban terminology (but not, yet, in a printed dictionary).

You seem hell-bent on showing that I must have ulterior motives, that I'm really a bigot of some new and exciting definition, but I just don't think that is the case.

Have you considered how difficult it is to change social conditioning that's been instilled since birth? Of course GA used to exhibit masculine traits, and now as Kayleigh she is working to reprogram her brain to overcome the training and act in a way more aligned with her natural self. If you're having difficulty revising your mental concept, that task is exponentially more difficult from the inside. Not something to be undertaken on a whim, and an ongoing process.

Tell me why I should. What I'm talking about is an individual I learned to know on teh interwebs as a male, who identified himself as a male, and whose friends online identified him as a male. I used a set of pronouns when addressing him or talking about him, but there was no conscious effort on my part. Basically I was indifferent.

I am discussing a vocabulary, a terminology, that is consistent. I am in no way saying what anyone can or cannot do. Why do you think you link is relevant to what I am saying?

I'm in favour of a well-defined terminology, whatever that may be.

Because it is not inaccurate. It's not a spiritual discussion, simply a biological one. You are being PC, Pyraxis, and I have to say I'm a bit surprised.

Maybe I sound different because this is the first time I've tried to have a serious intellectual debate on Intensity.

I don't see how I'm being PC. I've never once called you bigot, transphobic, or cis-whatever-the-new-word-is. I don't know the PC terminology either, LOL! What I called you was a "crotchety old man" with "ridiculous antiquated views".

Sure, that's name-calling, but not out of character with the usual Intensity banter, IMO. I can even see why Kayleigh's blasting in here on a high horse wouldn't predispose you to seeing her POV. But make up your mind. If you don't want people to call you names, fine, but when I backed up my words with scientific sources, you also asked what the point was and whether I was "making you follow links for fun". What argument style are you looking for?

The essence of your argument seems to be that you want clear definitions for the terms male and female, yes? You said you were interested in finding out what pronouns were used for chimeras, but when I offered an answer, you asked what my point was. My point was to clarify the definition.

The reason I asked about mother nature and God is that nature can't have intentions unless it's an intelligent entity.

To me, going after a trans person's gender identity is seriously fighting dirty. That's why I don't do it, and why I was shocked to see that both you and Callaway did. (Schleed I've come to expect it from.) Hell, why do either of you even need to fight dirty? But whatever, I certainly can't stop it. I can however be vocal about my disgust.

That's another of my points here, if you want points. To make noise in defense of trans people. It's up to you how you respond to it.

I believe I have already answered most of your comments. I agree that "intentions" is a poor choice of words because it does indeed imply intelligence. I can't readily think of a better one but I am not talking about a god or any form of sentient decision-maker affecting the process, just the initial process by which the sex of the fetus is decided, random or otherwise.

How is my preferring definitions I think are unambiguous the same as fighting dirty? How is that the same as attacking someone's gender?

Oh, and your inability to give a straight answer to the simple Mowgli question and instead qualifying everything ad nauseum sounds very PC to me.

And finally, I suspect that nothing I can say here would make you change your opinions re me and what I'm saying. You tend to go after me and Callaway more often than not, and this is not an exception.

[RageBeoulve]

This thread.