<!--quoteo(post=1749139:date=Jan 25 2010, 08:47 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 25 2010, 08:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749139"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The second stall on the left :)
If I ruled the world there would not be separate men and women's restrooms, instead there would be one large room with stalls for everyone for individual privacy. In the current world he would use the women's restroom due to his female legal status due to appearance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The local lesbian bar has only a "mixed" toilet where there are urinals but also cubicles. Men and women can use whichever they choose. I think that's just as good as all-cubicle restrooms.
<!--quoteo(post=1749209:date=Jan 26 2010, 02:06 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 26 2010, 02:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749209"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you should probably make an effort to understand transgenderism and gender dysphoria, rather than making pronouncements after thinking about it for the briefest of interludes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think my statements about gender regarding genetic and a legal status, and that they shouldn't matter, should make it clear that I don't hold any kind of discriminatory views about gender identification. I am fully aware and support people being whoever, and whatever they want to be, I've had a friend who went through the surgery and I know plenty of homosexuals, drag queens and heterosexuals.
You took my statement out of context and attributed a lack of knowledge. Instead, my opinion is actually based on that knowledge and respect for their beliefs and actions because I am treating the label as irrelevant. Is a tom boy a male? No, it is a female that acts like a stereotypical boy. Is a male who lost his genitals in warfare no longer a man? He is still a man. Is a male in drag a female? Nope. If you combine the change if genitalia and dress/self identification does that equal a woman? Nope.
The classification of male and female is specific to reproductive parts. When a male goes through surgery to be female he isn't actually getting those parts, he is getting plastic surgery to look like he has those parts. If someone is born with both parts, they are both. While society should treat them as they self identify, it doesn't stop them from being that gender in scientific actuality. All the hormone treatments and surgery in the world is simply making them appear to be the stereotype of the other gender.
What needs to change is people's attitudes towards that identification. I work with federal reporting of race and ethnicity, where the process changed from biological to self identification. Now, when the person says they identify with a particular race that is how it is reported, even if someone collecting the information disagrees. So someone who is part black and part white can still report themselves in any combination or as a singular race, someone can't just say 'no you are black'. Transgenderism is a self identification of gender, which I support, but the biological truth is that the person is the gender they started with. I'm white, saying I'm black, getting surgery to change my outward appearance and behavior to black doesn't make me black. Instead, what race I am and what gender people are is what shouldn't matter to other people.
The reason that this is on topic is, as I noted before, the push is for non-homosexual marriage is for the legal union of a legally defined male and legally defined female. Transgendered people can marry their own starting gender if they get a legal gender change but non-transgendered can't. It makes the whole heterosexual marriage only idea pointless. Instead, knowing the biological and self identifying status of a person doesn't fit that mold should make it clear that the legal union should be open to any two individuals.
<!--quoteo(post=1749266:date=Jan 26 2010, 05:00 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 26 2010, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So someone who is part black and part white can still report themselves in any combination or as a singular race, someone can't just say 'no you are black'. Transgenderism is a self identification of gender, which I support, but the biological truth is that the person is the gender they started with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So while we can't tell people what race/skin colour they are, it's perfectly fine to tell them what sex/gender they are? We wouldn't dare tell someone who grew up essentially like a WASP (but with black skin colour) that he ain't proper black, and for good reason. And yet it is perfectly fine to tell a woman trapped in a man's body that she will never be a woman no matter how hard she tries?
What is the biological truth? I point again at the Y-chromosome, more specifically <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome#Defective_Y-chromosome" target="_blank">this case.</a> This leads to a person who looks like a woman, but would genetically be identified as a man. I don't even know what gender the authorities would assign them, but presumably we would all agree that such a person can stake a much more solid claim to a subsequent sex change than us "normal" people. But why is that? If genes and outward appearance can differ, and if we're willing to give both equal weight, then why can't physical and psychological gender differ as well, and why is one more important than the other? Specifically, why is the BODY more important than the MIND? Our bodies are slaves to our minds, our minds tell our bodies what to do, not the other way around. So why do you disregard the mind when it comes to transgenders?
<!--quoteo(post=1749272:date=Jan 26 2010, 10:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 26 2010, 10:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So while we can't tell people what race/skin colour they are, it's perfectly fine to tell them what sex/gender they are?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you are missing my point, please reread my post and then the following.
The self identification <i>should be the important part</i> irrelevant of biological gender, but the surgery does not change the gender legally, <i>a court order does</i>.
A couple that identifies their relationship as a married couple should be able to get married, with no regard to gender. A male who self identifies as a female should be treated as a female whether he dresses in drag, gets a surgery to alter his body or simply sees himself as a female based on his social behaviors. Racial identification at the federal level has changed to self identification, where gender identify is still based on legally defined gender, which happens to follow genetic gender in most cases.
If a baby is born with an XY chromosome pair, gets a birth certificate that says they are female (due to a mother's deception because she wants a female), goes through life as a female from birth and decides to get married to another male who is cool with the male parts, then they can get married legally. That person is 'still a dude' because they were born as a genetic male, their self identification is currently irrelevant when speaking about their gender <i>in legal terms</i>, their birth certificate and other legal papers are what matter.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Just to clear up on some definitions:
Sex = biological / genetic. If you're XY you're genetically/biologically/"sex"ually male. If you're XX you're female by the same criteria.
Gender = the psychological / self identification aspect. It's perfectly possible to be genetically male, have completely male phenotypes, go through no surgery, and still be female by gender.
As far as I'm aware, gender is the one that takes precedence in the law (although you have to prove that you're what you say you are, I think, which is why transgender operations take so long; in the UK at least, you have to live as the gender you claim to be for x months/years before they'll do the operation. I think). Gender is also the one that should be more important in a social context.
Sex = genetic and unchangeable.
Gender = psychological and malleable (although some people will claim that it's just as fixed as sex).
<!--quoteo(post=1749283:date=Jan 26 2010, 11:37 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jan 26 2010, 11:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sex = genetic and unchangeable.
Gender = psychological and malleable (although some people will claim that it's just as fixed as sex).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there is a difference in the words when used in sociology, however when used legally (most of the time) or in casual conversation they mean the same thing. Regardless of my word choice, I've made it clear through the context that no matter what their situation is, they should be getting treated the same.
As an example of the US legal situation here is a FAQ from my home state:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Customer question: I would like to change my sex or gender on my birth certificate because I had a sex change. How to I change my birth certificate?
Answer: If you have or are going to have a sex change operation, you can change the sex or gender listed on your birth certificate to the sex or gender to which you have changed.
Please provide our office with medical certification substantiating that a physiological or anatomical change has occurred. The certification must be from the doctor who performed the surgery. You also need to provide a notarized statement requesting that your sex or gender be changed. Click here for a sample of a notarized statement.
Note: Taking hormones or breast reassignment surgery does not qualify as a sex or gender change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But as I've already pointed out multiple times I don't think gender identity or biological sex should even matter so I'm not sure why someone using my word choice has to explain it.
It's like having a discussion on rivers where someone calls frogs and alligators both reptiles and in danger from pollution, then someone points out that frogs are amphibians and that the person needs to learn about biological classifications instead of just thinking 'he used the wrong term, but stated his relevant point about them both in being in danger from pollution clearly'.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
No, it's more like having a discussion that includes gender identity and saying that people can't change that they are male by having an operation because it is a purely biological question, ignoring the fact that there is an important distinction that is made between Sex and Gender, making yourself sound ignorant and abrasive, despite claims that you understand the distinction.
Analogies suck, stick to the facts.
However, yes. The laws tend to not refer to gender, but to sex (gender seems to never be mentioned that I have seen). This is probably simply due to the fact that the idea of gender identification and sex not being the same are a relatively new one in terms of general knowledge/acceptance. That being said, Gender identification is what they care about (many states don't even require an operation to change your 'sex')
<!--quoteo(post=1749304:date=Jan 26 2010, 01:06 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 26 2010, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, it's more like having a discussion that includes gender identity and saying that people can't change that they are male by having an operation because it is a purely biological question, ignoring the fact that there is an important distinction that is made between Sex and Gender, making yourself sound ignorant and abrasive, despite claims that you understand the distinction.
Analogies suck, stick to the facts.
However, yes. The laws tend to not refer to gender, but to sex (gender seems to never be mentioned that I have seen). This is probably simply due to the fact that the idea of gender identification and sex not being the same are a relatively new one in terms of general knowledge/acceptance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So while my view that all people should be treated equally in regards to gender/sex I come off as abrasive and ignorant because I use the word 'gender' in the legal and common usage that applies to the topic? In the US, which is the country used in the original post, gender and sex are the same thing in regards to laws.
FYI, I brought gender identity into the discussion. I recognized that there was a distinction in treatment between ######s who have the same sex and gender and those that have gone through the legal change, which generally requires a physical change, and pointed out that this was unequal. I pointed out that the legal process for gender identification hasn't caught up with racial self identification.
I pointed out that it shouldn't matter what the person's gender/sex and that everyone should be treated equally. Focusing on word choice or a related view when the person supports your same view of equality comes off as arrogant and defensive.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited January 2010
snoogums, you say that it should not be an issue how people identify their own gender. And yet, you insist on splitting hairs to point out that someone born male is fundamentally male. I believe you when you say that you are okay with however people choose to define their own gender, but I think you need to step back and consider the fact that, whenever you assert this fact, you seem to feel the need to make accompanying assertions of biological essentialism.
Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?
The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.
Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.
<!--quoteo(post=1749272:date=Jan 26 2010, 04:44 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 26 2010, 04:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So while we can't tell people what race/skin colour they are,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can if you have a colorimeter.
Although first you need to invent one that can be used by pointing it at people.
Or reduce your subject to a few cubic centimetres of semitransparent fluid first.
Isn't science fun.<!--quoteo(post=1749329:date=Jan 26 2010, 09:09 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 26 2010, 09:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->snoogums, you say that it should not be an issue how people identify their own gender. And yet, you insist on splitting hairs to point out that someone born male is fundamentally male. I believe you when you say that you are okay with however people choose to define their own gender, but I think you need to step back and consider the fact that, whenever you assert this fact, you seem to feel the need to make accompanying assertions of biological essentialism.
Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?
The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.
Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the problem is that sex and gender are the same thing to most people, I thought it was the same thing until someone sat me down and explained it very carefully.
It's kinda hard to separate them because you use the same words to describe both and generally they align perfectly for most people, and I still don't really get it, I understand the theory but don't 'get' it like I do the theory of tangent space normal mapping for example, it's just something I have to accept rather than understand and apply myself, like a lot of things actually.
Basically you're always going to be anatomically male, unless you develop a way to detach sex from genetics and properly alter people's physiology in ways other than the rather crude ones available to medical science nowadays, but as to what you think you are it can be anything you like. For some people the idea that 'I am male because I have a penis' doesn't work.
The way it was explained to me is that most men, if somehow magically transposed into the body of a woman, would still think they were men, just stuck in a female body. The sense of gender identity is not attached the the physiology, it's something separate and so it carries with you whatever physical change you undergo, which is a fairly common attitude if you actually think about it because most of the comedy sketches built around the aforementioned premise always take the route of 'oh no I am a man but now I have a woman's body HOW AM I EVER TO DO MANLY THINGS THAT I MUST DO BECAUSE I AM A MAN AAA' rather than 'Hmm I have a female body so now I am female oh well'. Presumably some people just end up for whatever reason with the belief that they are male or female when physically they aren't, because of the detached nature of the belief in all people.
<!--quoteo(post=1749329:date=Jan 27 2010, 12:09 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. It's honest. Granted it's a bad choice of words because it can produce misunderstanding in confusion of different definitions of gender. I think snoogums made it abundantly clear that he has no prejudice in the matter despite granting the distinction, so it's a moot point to point it out.
I think it's little different from saying there are black/white people: you don't have to be racist to make the distinction, it's just a technicality.
<!--quoteo(post=1749348:date=Jan 27 2010, 01:04 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 01:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749348"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Presumably some people just end up for whatever reason with the belief that they are male or female when physically they aren't, because of the detached nature of the belief in all people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently it's genetic. For some fiendish reason, physical gender, hormonal balance, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual drive are all coded for by separate genes (dozens of them, even).
Then again, few things about our biology make sense. Male's most vulnerable zone being located on the outside should be the first clue, really.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1749403:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:30 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 27 2010, 05:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes. It's honest. Granted it's a bad choice of words because it can produce misunderstanding in confusion of different definitions of gender. I think snoogums made it abundantly clear that he has no prejudice in the matter despite granting the distinction, so it's a moot point to point it out.
I think it's little different from saying there are black/white people: you don't have to be racist to make the distinction, it's just a technicality.
Apparently it's genetic. For some fiendish reason, physical gender, hormonal balance, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual drive are all coded for by separate genes (dozens of them, even).
Then again, few things about our biology make sense. Male's most vulnerable zone being located on the outside should be the first clue, really.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my limited understanding, there is no definitive "this is why people have gender identification issues". There might be some biological reasoning, but I am fairly sure that if an average baby was raised as a member of the opposite sex that is how they would identify.
I'm also with lolf on this, Insane explained why it is such an important distinction much better than I can.
side note: Testes are far from the most vulnerable zone on a man, try getting punched in the throat, eye gouged, rabbit punched, or a strike to the kidneys some time. Also, the Testes are located outside of the body due to the thermal sensitivity of sperm
Only by your definition. Other definitions would hold it to be grossly insensitive.
You appear to have ignored nearly everything I said, in favour of continuing to bang the "fundamentally male" drum. It doesn't matter if you have the best of intentions, you are not acting without prejudice if you can't discuss the topic of transgenderism without doing that.
On a side not, you can't reduce something as complex as gender or sexuality to mere genetics. There's too much going on.
<!--quoteo(post=1749414:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From my limited understanding, there is no definitive "this is why people have gender identification issues".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, human sexuality is still very shady business. Things like X/Y chromosome mess-ups are fairly definitive though.
<!--quoteo(post=1749414:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There might be some biological reasoning, but I am fairly sure that if an average baby was raised as a member of the opposite sex that is how they would identify.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that exactly fails for people with gender dysphoria, and that can manifest from very young age and throughout life.
<!--quoteo(post=1749414:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->side note: Testes are far from the most vulnerable zone on a man, try getting punched in the throat, eye gouged, rabbit punched, or a strike to the kidneys some time. Also, the Testes are located outside of the body due to the thermal sensitivity of sperm<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I tried three of these, zero comparison to testicular mistreatment. But maybe that's just me. And yeah, that's the reason, correct.
<!--quoteo(post=1749416:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only by your definition. Other definitions would hold it to be grossly insensitive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By his and by social science definitions, to be more precise. Saying things for what they are is what honesty is. Like I said, yes, it can be easily misinterpreted, and that's the real problem here: you misunderstand what he's trying to say. I would say "separate but equal" if this didn't mean the exact opposite...
<!--quoteo(post=1749416:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You appear to have ignored nearly everything I said, in favour of continuing to bang the "fundamentally male" drum. It doesn't matter if you have the best of intentions, you are not acting without prejudice if you can't discuss the topic of transgenderism without doing that.
On a side not, you can't reduce something as complex as gender or sexuality to mere genetics. There's too much going on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see how I did any of that. What I'm saying is that your criticisms are logically invalid, as snoogums clearly means no ill will: there's a difference between differentiation and segregation. He's not telling someone they can't be intersexed, identify as another gender, have sex change, whatever else: but merely that their physical and mental identities remain separate, which is the whole point of the issue to begin with.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Okay, let's try this one more time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe I have misinterpreted that statement. There's not much in it to misinterpret.
I am not criticising anyone on the grounds of "ill will". What I am doing is criticising the attitude that leads to the <i>need to make that biological distinction</i>, particularly as it is rarely relevant to anyone except an individual's doctor.
If you're going to invoke "social science" and suggest that I am being illogical and misinterpretive, then I think you are going to have to point out the "social science" text that says "He's still a dude." Otherwise, you're just making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1749419:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:08 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 27 2010, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how I did any of that. What I'm saying is that your criticisms are logically invalid, as snoogums clearly means no ill will: there's a difference between differentiation and segregation. He's not telling someone they can't be intersexed, identify as another gender, have sex change, whatever else: but merely that their physical and mental identities remain separate, which is the whole point of the issue to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that in saying "And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude." and "yes, they are still homosexuals to me" is flat out denying that they are what they identify as.
It reads much like this: "Homosexuality is wrong, the bible tells me so. However, I am an American, and believe that all people should have equal treatment under the law, thus I do not oppose same sex marriage (they are still gonna burn in hell though)." (yes, analogies suck, and I don't think that snooggums thinks that they are an abomination or anything, I don't even necessarily think that he thinks they are wrong, simply that his arguments make it sound that way.)
It is agreeing with their rights, but still condemning them. I don't actually have a problem with this, in fact, I think that people like this are very good people, as it is harder to fight for some thing that you don't actually agree with. The problem is snooggums' insistence that he does support these choices, yet also insists that they are wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1749329:date=Jan 26 2010, 03:09 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 26 2010, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->snoogums, you say that it should not be an issue how people identify their own gender. And yet, you insist on splitting hairs to point out that someone born male is fundamentally male. I believe you when you say that you are okay with however people choose to define their own gender, but I think you need to step back and consider the fact that, whenever you assert this fact, you seem to feel the need to make accompanying assertions of biological essentialism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In current society a person’s legal gender is defined by outside views more so than their personal view. Without biological essentialism gender is simply a conformity to societal stereotypes in how the person dresses and behaves. People who aren’t transgender can conform to a gender role in everything but surgery, but will be perceived as their starting sex.
Let’s take a homosexual male couple. One is the homemaker, acts like a ‘female’, talks like a ‘female’ but doesn’t feel a desire to change their physical attributes or clothing styles to match. Is this person free to have a female gender identity? What if the person wore drag all the time? How about a butch lesbian that fits all of the stereotypical male patterns? Should she be able to simply determine herself to be male if she wishes?
When a label with origins in biology are freely changed at whim they no longer have meaning. Transgender self identity only has meaning because there is a base comparison with the sex they are changing to. Once it is completely flexible there is absolutely no meaning in the gender because anyone can identify as they will. I’m happy about the race self identification because it makes race meaningless and instead changes the topic to culture, as someone raised by a white family can self identify as white no matter what their skin color. Part of the reason for the racial change is intermixing of races. While there are ‘between genders’ such as hermaphrodites, there isn’t a term for that such as male and female, nor is there the option to be both like there is for mixed races.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although the answer is yes, it is really a tangent about self identity and behaviors and how much of that should be based on perceptions of conformity to standard gender roles.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I’m fine with other people participating in a religion, but if addressing an issue that involves their religion I won’t hesitate to point out that I disagree with specific points about it that relate to the topic. I brought up the ‘still a male’ comment because it is related to the primary topic, legal gender status and marriage, which in the US requires physical surgery changes.
Why do you assume that someone who has the same resulting opinion on choice has to have the same reason or responses for that opinion? This has always bothered me about diversity issues, that there is an expectation that when an issue is understood and two people come to agreement that they have to have the same reasons.
Let’s take opposition to the death penalty. Some might be against it because it is disproportionately applied to minorities or the poor, some might be opposed because of a moral reason and some might be against it because of the chance of an innocent person being executed. All three may or may not share the other reasons but they come to the same conclusion. Should they argue that the other reasons aren’t valid or that the others shouldn’t talk about their reasons as being definitive and instead just agree on the resulting opposition to the death penalty?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only because people put too much value in the label of a particular gender. A butch lesbian who has no surgery is as much a female legally and as perceived by society as a male who goes through gender alteration surgery. The first doesn’t fit the gender the second is attempting to but is that gender by default. If the transgender person didn’t feel the need to fit the stereotype, then getting the surgery wouldn’t need to be accompanied by the gender change, the gender change is simply a need to conform with the perceived standards of that gender.
<b>I’ll reiterate how this is related to the topic: Homosexual marriages in the United States. </b> In the US, many states have altered their state constitutions to bar same sex marriages. In law, in the US, gender and sex are generally the same. This means that the legal status of a person determines whether they are male or female. As I quoted above, my state requires surgery of the genitals for someone to change genders/sex legally. My state also added this wording to the state constitution:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->16: Marriage. (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, this means that homosexuals are barred from getting a civil union that is equal to marriage, as long as they are both the same legal sex/gender, even if one otherwise acts and behaves as a stereotypical woman. The importance of this distinction is that when tied with the ability to change your sex legally. A starting same sex couple where one has completed the required surgery and changed their sex/gender legally can get married but one that doesn’t, even if the other behavior and self identification is the same, isn’t able to. If there was an ability to self identify as a particular gender without physical requirements then one person would simply need to self identify as the other gender to get married. A person who is against same sex marriage is most likely going to have the same basic biologically defined gender view as me, yet have a different view on whether the same couple should be married.
<!--quoteo(post=1749430:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:36 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that in saying "And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude." and "yes, they are still homosexuals to me" is flat out denying that they are what they identify as.
It reads much like this: "Homosexuality is wrong, the bible tells me so. However, I am an American, and believe that all people should have equal treatment under the law, thus I do not oppose same sex marriage (they are still gonna burn in hell though)." (yes, analogies suck, and I don't think that snooggums thinks that they are an abomination or anything, I don't even necessarily think that he thinks they are wrong, simply that his arguments make it sound that way.)
It is agreeing with their rights, but still condemning them. I don't actually have a problem with this, in fact, I think that people like this are very good people, as it is harder to fight for some thing that you don't actually agree with. The problem is snooggums' insistence that he does support these choices, yet also insists that they are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are attributing meaning and intent to words that isn't there. I'm atheist FYI, so if the bible comment was directed at me it is completely incorrect.
My words should be read more like this: I had a friend in high school who was in the closet. Funny enough he was the son of a minister so he was very afraid of admitting this. He dated a girl and acted like a heterosexual and even identified himself that way. If the topic came up I would always say: "No, you are homosexual." (I actually used the three letter filtered word) I didn't mean this harshly, I was just pointing out his real nature. This never upset him, he just denied it. When he finally came out in college there was no surprise. He had played the role of a straight person but underneath he was a homosexual, and his denial of that part by trying to fit into a heterosexual stereotype caused him much confusion and identity issues. When he came out he thought he would lose his friends but we all knew and we didn't care. His self identity was based on what he thought people wanted him to be instead of what he was. Me saying "You are still a homosexual." is just like me saying "He is still a dude." it is an outside label on how I see the person, in the case of a transgender, I make the distinction on the genes. Where I make that distinction shouldn't matter to a person who puts more importance on self identifying.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
Basically you are saying that you think that transgendered individuals are wrong, however you support their right to be wrong, and the hypocrisy that it is possibly for a transgendered individual who has legally changed their sex to marry some one of their original sex, however homosexuals can not marry.
This is fine by me, I can accept this, I don't agree with it (I agree with the bit about SSM), however I can accept it.
You bring up some other points however.
Should you flat out accept some one's argument who's end goal is the same as yours, even if you are coming from different locations? I don't necessarily think so. A faulty argument, or a decision based on different principles than your own can be nearly as bad for your cause as opposition.
Your death penalty one is interesting. Person A believes that we must abolish the death penalty because it is fundamentally wrong to kill people. Person B believes that we must have a moratorium on the death penalty because it is being unfairly applied.
Person B's argument wins out, and laws are passed restricting the death penalty until further investigation. Further investigation happens, laws are changed, etc etc, and now states have the death penalty again. Person A back at square one and Person B is satisfied.
In your case I would still continue to argue because I believe that it IS important to recognize transgendered people as what they are, and accept that they are what they believe.
You also appear to be missing a lot of information about transgendered people. You don't seem to acknowledge the differences between a transvestite, a butch/effeminate person, and a transgendered person. A transvestite fully identifies as their 'default' gender, they simply adopt the trappings of the other gender. An effeminate/butch person also identifies as their own gender, but have traits of the other. A transgendered person identifies as the opposite gender, regardless of trappings/behaviors. There of course can be degrees amongst all of these things, human begins are not simple devices. This also COMPLETELY ignores the question of sexuality, as any and all forms of sexuality could be practiced by any of these types of people. Again, we aren't simple things.
Your main goal seems to be that we should simply ignore everything about every one and treat every one exactly the same. Nice in concept, but really rather silly. There is nothing wrong with identifying as X/Y/Z, in fact, I think it is important. I think it is important for people to identify, be it with race, gender, creed, whatever. It helps us understand who we are, what we are, and what we are doing. Too me, the fact that I am a straight male is an important aspect of who I am. It gives me some definition of what I am and where I am in life. This doesn't mean that I am necessarily a stereotypical male (I am far from it), or that I accept much of what society tells me I should be (I don't). However, it is still important.
Ninja edit for your second post: 1) My bible comment was an analogy, as I said, and I acknowledge that it was faulty (all are), however I hoped that it would serve it's purpose, it obviously didn't.
2) "Where I make that distinction shouldn't matter to a person who puts more importance on self identifying." It does. IT shouldn't, but it does. We care about what other people think of us. If you insisted on using the pronoun that some one doesn't identify with, despite know that they do not, you will likely end up with some one rather pissed off at you. We want to be accepted by society. Some of us are better at shrugging off other people's intolerance, ignorance, malice, or differing opinions, but it always has an effect. That is my point. You say that we should accept every one, yet you refuse to accept transgendered people for what they believe they are.
What if you had been wrong about your friend? He wasn't actually homosexual, yet you insisted he was, do you think that he would have really put up with it for ever? Or would he eventually have gotten annoyed enough to do something about it? It's is about accepting and respecting other people, and that includes their beliefs.
As I see it there is your physiology and your mentality, change both of those and you become something entirely different.
At the moment changing physiology is difficult and limited and imperfect, and changing mentality is difficult to control and poorly understood, so changing either is unlikely, however if you could then presumably it would be quite easy to go from physically and mentally male to physically and mentally female and I wouldn't see any reason to take prior states into account, just because someone started out in one state doesn't mean they can't change state over time.
<!--quoteo(post=1749428:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do not believe I have misinterpreted that statement. There's not much in it to misinterpret.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's tons to misinterpret, generally to do with the notion of physical/mental gender. While a transgendered person may be, say, mentally and genetically female before the operation, they'll still be physically male even after it (as in, someone with female born with no breasts or something). Well, somewhat, it's all shades of gray here.
<!--quoteo(post=1749428:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not criticising anyone on the grounds of "ill will". What I am doing is criticising the attitude that leads to the <i>need to make that biological distinction</i>, particularly as it is rarely relevant to anyone except an individual's doctor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I'm talking about: just because one makes the distinction doesn't mean they extrapolate it to some moral ideals. It's easy to confuse one for another because our society is bigoted in general, even having red hair can lend you a great deal of grief... But that doesn't stop you from having red hair.
There's no need to get so worked up over this. I'm just trying to help.
<!--quoteo(post=1749430:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:36 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 05:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that in saying "And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude." and "yes, they are still homosexuals to me" is flat out denying that they are what they identify as.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's not talking about mental or genetical identity, but physical one. Like I said, yes, it's ripe for misinterpretation: I was ready to wail on snoogum as well before reading through the follow-up posts. I believe he outright said he has no problem with it, and that he hates bigots as much as the next guy.
It's a misunderstanding. Nothing new to the Interwebs...
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1749450:date=Jan 27 2010, 12:54 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 27 2010, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's not talking about mental or genetical identity, but physical one. Like I said, yes, it's ripe for misinterpretation: I was ready to jump snoogum's bones as well before reading through the follow-up posts. I believe he outright said he has no problem with it, and that he hates bigots as much as the next guy.
It's a misunderstanding. Nothing new to the Interwebs...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So...
Bigotry gets your Horny?
The problem, is that he denies their identification, and insists that they are whatever they are genetically. I think you are actually putting words in his mouth that he doesn't agree with.
<!--quoteo(post=1749443:date=Jan 27 2010, 07:16 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 07:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749443"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically you are saying that you think that transgendered individuals are wrong, however you support their right to be wrong, and the hypocrisy that it is possibly for a transgendered individual who has legally changed their sex to marry some one of their original sex, however homosexuals can not marry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, no, stop. You misinterpret everything the guy has to say on the matter. He said no such thing, nor anything in your post for that matter.
The few posts above basically say: "I was talking about genetical gender. I have no problem with people being of another gender or physique." Well, to the best of my understanding.
<!--quoteo(post=1749452:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bigotry gets your Horny?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What the. I have no idea why I wrote that... How fitting for the topic though.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
"Me saying "You are still a homosexual." is just like me saying "He is still a dude." it is an outside label on how I see the person, in the case of a transgender, I make the distinction on the genes. Where I make that distinction shouldn't matter to a person who puts more importance on self identifying."
This is him stating that self identification doesn't matter to him, he will view a transgendered person as their biological gender no matter what. This is because he doesn't seem to place any value on societal definitions of gender. He also states that this shouldn't matter as these are his personal views, and people should be free to be transgendered and identify as they see fit, however he should also be free to ignore their self identification.
I agree that he has the right to view people as he sees fit, and he even has the right to refuse to acknowledge their self identification. However, I think he is wrong in doing so. In denying some one's self identification it denies who they are, and that their beliefs are important, some thing that I think is wrong.
If he will contradict me, and point out what he was trying to say I will accept it, or if you can show me where something he said contradicts me I will also accept it. However, I think I understand what he is saying (As it is all said fairly plainly).
Also, If bigotry makes your horny, you don't have to hide it. I think it is fairly obvious that all of us are rather accepting people.
<!--quoteo(post=1749443:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:16 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 10:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749443"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically you are saying that you think that transgendered individuals are wrong, however you support their right to be wrong, and the hypocrisy that it is possibly for a transgendered individual who has legally changed their sex to marry some one of their original sex, however homosexuals can not marry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm not saying they are wrong to self identify. Draco is reading correctly, a disagreement or pointing out that most people view a group a certain way does not automatically indicate a negative judgment against that group.
I'm also offended that you insinuated bigotry when I have indicated a methodology to my logic, an explanation of how I came to my conclusions and have made it clear that my personal opinions don't lead to any kind of discrimination against a particular group. My pointing out of the difference between a post-op transgender and a pre-op transgender marriage eligibility was there to illustrate that the opposite sex only requirements of marriage bills are actually pointless because sex/gender is a legal matter, not a self identification one. If it was a self identification issue it would be even less of an issue because gender would at that point be truly fluid. Instead of using male and female, self identifying as feminine or masculine would bypass the public's aversion to transgendered persons, without the confusion of reliance on biological terminology.
Pointing that out is not negative, it is simply noting something that is true. I've already said multiple times that gender should play no part in the requirement for two people to get married. That view even takes care of the people with genetically mixed genders.
Plus, my view doesn't deny them any ability to self identify. People self identify many things about themselves that everyone else disagrees with. Taking action on that difference is what what matters.
<!--quoteo(post=1749457:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749457"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is him stating that self identification doesn't matter to him, he will view a transgendered person as their biological gender no matter what.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Still view their biological gender as their biological gender. Just in case it's still not clear enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1749457:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749457"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, If bigotry makes your horny, you don't have to hide it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For ######'s sake, don't say that.
Comments
If I ruled the world there would not be separate men and women's restrooms, instead there would be one large room with stalls for everyone for individual privacy. In the current world he would use the women's restroom due to his female legal status due to appearance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The local lesbian bar has only a "mixed" toilet where there are urinals but also cubicles. Men and women can use whichever they choose. I think that's just as good as all-cubicle restrooms.
Ave machinia!
Read the culture novels by iain banks, they're rather mind expanding.
I think my statements about gender regarding genetic and a legal status, and that they shouldn't matter, should make it clear that I don't hold any kind of discriminatory views about gender identification. I am fully aware and support people being whoever, and whatever they want to be, I've had a friend who went through the surgery and I know plenty of homosexuals, drag queens and heterosexuals.
You took my statement out of context and attributed a lack of knowledge. Instead, my opinion is actually based on that knowledge and respect for their beliefs and actions because I am treating the label as irrelevant. Is a tom boy a male? No, it is a female that acts like a stereotypical boy. Is a male who lost his genitals in warfare no longer a man? He is still a man. Is a male in drag a female? Nope. If you combine the change if genitalia and dress/self identification does that equal a woman? Nope.
The classification of male and female is specific to reproductive parts. When a male goes through surgery to be female he isn't actually getting those parts, he is getting plastic surgery to look like he has those parts. If someone is born with both parts, they are both. While society should treat them as they self identify, it doesn't stop them from being that gender in scientific actuality. All the hormone treatments and surgery in the world is simply making them appear to be the stereotype of the other gender.
What needs to change is people's attitudes towards that identification. I work with federal reporting of race and ethnicity, where the process changed from biological to self identification. Now, when the person says they identify with a particular race that is how it is reported, even if someone collecting the information disagrees. So someone who is part black and part white can still report themselves in any combination or as a singular race, someone can't just say 'no you are black'. Transgenderism is a self identification of gender, which I support, but the biological truth is that the person is the gender they started with. I'm white, saying I'm black, getting surgery to change my outward appearance and behavior to black doesn't make me black. Instead, what race I am and what gender people are is what shouldn't matter to other people.
The reason that this is on topic is, as I noted before, the push is for non-homosexual marriage is for the legal union of a legally defined male and legally defined female. Transgendered people can marry their own starting gender if they get a legal gender change but non-transgendered can't. It makes the whole heterosexual marriage only idea pointless. Instead, knowing the biological and self identifying status of a person doesn't fit that mold should make it clear that the legal union should be open to any two individuals.
So while we can't tell people what race/skin colour they are, it's perfectly fine to tell them what sex/gender they are? We wouldn't dare tell someone who grew up essentially like a WASP (but with black skin colour) that he ain't proper black, and for good reason. And yet it is perfectly fine to tell a woman trapped in a man's body that she will never be a woman no matter how hard she tries?
What is the biological truth? I point again at the Y-chromosome, more specifically <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome#Defective_Y-chromosome" target="_blank">this case.</a> This leads to a person who looks like a woman, but would genetically be identified as a man. I don't even know what gender the authorities would assign them, but presumably we would all agree that such a person can stake a much more solid claim to a subsequent sex change than us "normal" people. But why is that? If genes and outward appearance can differ, and if we're willing to give both equal weight, then why can't physical and psychological gender differ as well, and why is one more important than the other? Specifically, why is the BODY more important than the MIND? Our bodies are slaves to our minds, our minds tell our bodies what to do, not the other way around. So why do you disregard the mind when it comes to transgenders?
No, you are missing my point, please reread my post and then the following.
The self identification <i>should be the important part</i> irrelevant of biological gender, but the surgery does not change the gender legally, <i>a court order does</i>.
A couple that identifies their relationship as a married couple should be able to get married, with no regard to gender. A male who self identifies as a female should be treated as a female whether he dresses in drag, gets a surgery to alter his body or simply sees himself as a female based on his social behaviors. Racial identification at the federal level has changed to self identification, where gender identify is still based on legally defined gender, which happens to follow genetic gender in most cases.
If a baby is born with an XY chromosome pair, gets a birth certificate that says they are female (due to a mother's deception because she wants a female), goes through life as a female from birth and decides to get married to another male who is cool with the male parts, then they can get married legally. That person is 'still a dude' because they were born as a genetic male, their self identification is currently irrelevant when speaking about their gender <i>in legal terms</i>, their birth certificate and other legal papers are what matter.
They can self identify their race though.
Sex = biological / genetic. If you're XY you're genetically/biologically/"sex"ually male. If you're XX you're female by the same criteria.
Gender = the psychological / self identification aspect. It's perfectly possible to be genetically male, have completely male phenotypes, go through no surgery, and still be female by gender.
As far as I'm aware, gender is the one that takes precedence in the law (although you have to prove that you're what you say you are, I think, which is why transgender operations take so long; in the UK at least, you have to live as the gender you claim to be for x months/years before they'll do the operation. I think). Gender is also the one that should be more important in a social context.
Sex = genetic and unchangeable.
Gender = psychological and malleable (although some people will claim that it's just as fixed as sex).
They don't need to match.
Gender = psychological and malleable (although some people will claim that it's just as fixed as sex).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there is a difference in the words when used in sociology, however when used legally (most of the time) or in casual conversation they mean the same thing. Regardless of my word choice, I've made it clear through the context that no matter what their situation is, they should be getting treated the same.
As an example of the US legal situation here is a FAQ from my home state:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Customer question: I would like to change my sex or gender on my birth certificate because I had a sex change. How to I change my birth certificate?
Answer: If you have or are going to have a sex change operation, you can change the sex or gender listed on your birth certificate to the sex or gender to which you have changed.
Please provide our office with medical certification substantiating that a physiological or anatomical change has occurred. The certification must be from the doctor who performed the surgery. You also need to provide a notarized statement requesting that your sex or gender be changed. Click here for a sample of a notarized statement.
Note: Taking hormones or breast reassignment surgery does not qualify as a sex or gender change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But as I've already pointed out multiple times I don't think gender identity or biological sex should even matter so I'm not sure why someone using my word choice has to explain it.
It's like having a discussion on rivers where someone calls frogs and alligators both reptiles and in danger from pollution, then someone points out that frogs are amphibians and that the person needs to learn about biological classifications instead of just thinking 'he used the wrong term, but stated his relevant point about them both in being in danger from pollution clearly'.
Analogies suck, stick to the facts.
However, yes. The laws tend to not refer to gender, but to sex (gender seems to never be mentioned that I have seen). This is probably simply due to the fact that the idea of gender identification and sex not being the same are a relatively new one in terms of general knowledge/acceptance. That being said, Gender identification is what they care about (many states don't even require an operation to change your 'sex')
Analogies suck, stick to the facts.
However, yes. The laws tend to not refer to gender, but to sex (gender seems to never be mentioned that I have seen). This is probably simply due to the fact that the idea of gender identification and sex not being the same are a relatively new one in terms of general knowledge/acceptance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So while my view that all people should be treated equally in regards to gender/sex I come off as abrasive and ignorant because I use the word 'gender' in the legal and common usage that applies to the topic? In the US, which is the country used in the original post, gender and sex are the same thing in regards to laws.
FYI, I brought gender identity into the discussion. I recognized that there was a distinction in treatment between ######s who have the same sex and gender and those that have gone through the legal change, which generally requires a physical change, and pointed out that this was unequal. I pointed out that the legal process for gender identification hasn't caught up with racial self identification.
I pointed out that it shouldn't matter what the person's gender/sex and that everyone should be treated equally. Focusing on word choice or a related view when the person supports your same view of equality comes off as arrogant and defensive.
Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?
The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.
Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.
You can if you have a colorimeter.
Although first you need to invent one that can be used by pointing it at people.
Or reduce your subject to a few cubic centimetres of semitransparent fluid first.
Isn't science fun.<!--quoteo(post=1749329:date=Jan 26 2010, 09:09 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 26 2010, 09:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->snoogums, you say that it should not be an issue how people identify their own gender. And yet, you insist on splitting hairs to point out that someone born male is fundamentally male. I believe you when you say that you are okay with however people choose to define their own gender, but I think you need to step back and consider the fact that, whenever you assert this fact, you seem to feel the need to make accompanying assertions of biological essentialism.
Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?
The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.
Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the problem is that sex and gender are the same thing to most people, I thought it was the same thing until someone sat me down and explained it very carefully.
It's kinda hard to separate them because you use the same words to describe both and generally they align perfectly for most people, and I still don't really get it, I understand the theory but don't 'get' it like I do the theory of tangent space normal mapping for example, it's just something I have to accept rather than understand and apply myself, like a lot of things actually.
Basically you're always going to be anatomically male, unless you develop a way to detach sex from genetics and properly alter people's physiology in ways other than the rather crude ones available to medical science nowadays, but as to what you think you are it can be anything you like. For some people the idea that 'I am male because I have a penis' doesn't work.
The way it was explained to me is that most men, if somehow magically transposed into the body of a woman, would still think they were men, just stuck in a female body. The sense of gender identity is not attached the the physiology, it's something separate and so it carries with you whatever physical change you undergo, which is a fairly common attitude if you actually think about it because most of the comedy sketches built around the aforementioned premise always take the route of 'oh no I am a man but now I have a woman's body HOW AM I EVER TO DO MANLY THINGS THAT I MUST DO BECAUSE I AM A MAN AAA' rather than 'Hmm I have a female body so now I am female oh well'. Presumably some people just end up for whatever reason with the belief that they are male or female when physically they aren't, because of the detached nature of the belief in all people.
Yes. It's honest. Granted it's a bad choice of words because it can produce misunderstanding in confusion of different definitions of gender. I think snoogums made it abundantly clear that he has no prejudice in the matter despite granting the distinction, so it's a moot point to point it out.
I think it's little different from saying there are black/white people: you don't have to be racist to make the distinction, it's just a technicality.
<!--quoteo(post=1749348:date=Jan 27 2010, 01:04 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 01:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749348"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Presumably some people just end up for whatever reason with the belief that they are male or female when physically they aren't, because of the detached nature of the belief in all people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently it's genetic. For some fiendish reason, physical gender, hormonal balance, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual drive are all coded for by separate genes (dozens of them, even).
Then again, few things about our biology make sense. Male's most vulnerable zone being located on the outside should be the first clue, really.
I think it's little different from saying there are black/white people: you don't have to be racist to make the distinction, it's just a technicality.
Apparently it's genetic. For some fiendish reason, physical gender, hormonal balance, gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual drive are all coded for by separate genes (dozens of them, even).
Then again, few things about our biology make sense. Male's most vulnerable zone being located on the outside should be the first clue, really.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my limited understanding, there is no definitive "this is why people have gender identification issues". There might be some biological reasoning, but I am fairly sure that if an average baby was raised as a member of the opposite sex that is how they would identify.
I'm also with lolf on this, Insane explained why it is such an important distinction much better than I can.
side note: Testes are far from the most vulnerable zone on a man, try getting punched in the throat, eye gouged, rabbit punched, or a strike to the kidneys some time. Also, the Testes are located outside of the body due to the thermal sensitivity of sperm
Only by your definition. Other definitions would hold it to be grossly insensitive.
You appear to have ignored nearly everything I said, in favour of continuing to bang the "fundamentally male" drum. It doesn't matter if you have the best of intentions, you are not acting without prejudice if you can't discuss the topic of transgenderism without doing that.
On a side not, you can't reduce something as complex as gender or sexuality to mere genetics. There's too much going on.
Yes, human sexuality is still very shady business. Things like X/Y chromosome mess-ups are fairly definitive though.
<!--quoteo(post=1749414:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There might be some biological reasoning, but I am fairly sure that if an average baby was raised as a member of the opposite sex that is how they would identify.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that exactly fails for people with gender dysphoria, and that can manifest from very young age and throughout life.
<!--quoteo(post=1749414:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->side note: Testes are far from the most vulnerable zone on a man, try getting punched in the throat, eye gouged, rabbit punched, or a strike to the kidneys some time. Also, the Testes are located outside of the body due to the thermal sensitivity of sperm<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried three of these, zero comparison to testicular mistreatment. But maybe that's just me. And yeah, that's the reason, correct.
<!--quoteo(post=1749416:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only by your definition. Other definitions would hold it to be grossly insensitive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By his and by social science definitions, to be more precise. Saying things for what they are is what honesty is. Like I said, yes, it can be easily misinterpreted, and that's the real problem here: you misunderstand what he's trying to say. I would say "separate but equal" if this didn't mean the exact opposite...
<!--quoteo(post=1749416:date=Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 03:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You appear to have ignored nearly everything I said, in favour of continuing to bang the "fundamentally male" drum. It doesn't matter if you have the best of intentions, you are not acting without prejudice if you can't discuss the topic of transgenderism without doing that.
On a side not, you can't reduce something as complex as gender or sexuality to mere genetics. There's too much going on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how I did any of that. What I'm saying is that your criticisms are logically invalid, as snoogums clearly means no ill will: there's a difference between differentiation and segregation. He's not telling someone they can't be intersexed, identify as another gender, have sex change, whatever else: but merely that their physical and mental identities remain separate, which is the whole point of the issue to begin with.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe I have misinterpreted that statement. There's not much in it to misinterpret.
I am not criticising anyone on the grounds of "ill will". What I am doing is criticising the attitude that leads to the <i>need to make that biological distinction</i>, particularly as it is rarely relevant to anyone except an individual's doctor.
If you're going to invoke "social science" and suggest that I am being illogical and misinterpretive, then I think you are going to have to point out the "social science" text that says "He's still a dude." Otherwise, you're just making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist.
The problem is that in saying "And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude." and "yes, they are still homosexuals to me" is flat out denying that they are what they identify as.
It reads much like this:
"Homosexuality is wrong, the bible tells me so. However, I am an American, and believe that all people should have equal treatment under the law, thus I do not oppose same sex marriage (they are still gonna burn in hell though)." (yes, analogies suck, and I don't think that snooggums thinks that they are an abomination or anything, I don't even necessarily think that he thinks they are wrong, simply that his arguments make it sound that way.)
It is agreeing with their rights, but still condemning them. I don't actually have a problem with this, in fact, I think that people like this are very good people, as it is harder to fight for some thing that you don't actually agree with. The problem is snooggums' insistence that he does support these choices, yet also insists that they are wrong.
In current society a person’s legal gender is defined by outside views more so than their personal view. Without biological essentialism gender is simply a conformity to societal stereotypes in how the person dresses and behaves. People who aren’t transgender can conform to a gender role in everything but surgery, but will be perceived as their starting sex.
Let’s take a homosexual male couple. One is the homemaker, acts like a ‘female’, talks like a ‘female’ but doesn’t feel a desire to change their physical attributes or clothing styles to match. Is this person free to have a female gender identity? What if the person wore drag all the time? How about a butch lesbian that fits all of the stereotypical male patterns? Should she be able to simply determine herself to be male if she wishes?
When a label with origins in biology are freely changed at whim they no longer have meaning. Transgender self identity only has meaning because there is a base comparison with the sex they are changing to. Once it is completely flexible there is absolutely no meaning in the gender because anyone can identify as they will. I’m happy about the race self identification because it makes race meaningless and instead changes the topic to culture, as someone raised by a white family can self identify as white no matter what their skin color. Part of the reason for the racial change is intermixing of races. While there are ‘between genders’ such as hermaphrodites, there isn’t a term for that such as male and female, nor is there the option to be both like there is for mixed races.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think it's helpful to say to someone, "I support your right, as a transgendered person, to identify as female, but that doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally male."?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although the answer is yes, it is really a tangent about self identity and behaviors and how much of that should be based on perceptions of conformity to standard gender roles.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason people are focusing on your choice of words, is because that choice <i>matters</i>. If you really are perfectly okay with people choosing their own gender, then you shouldn't feel the need to make pronouncements about who is essentially X, Y or Z.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I’m fine with other people participating in a religion, but if addressing an issue that involves their religion I won’t hesitate to point out that I disagree with specific points about it that relate to the topic. I brought up the ‘still a male’ comment because it is related to the primary topic, legal gender status and marriage, which in the US requires physical surgery changes.
Why do you assume that someone who has the same resulting opinion on choice has to have the same reason or responses for that opinion? This has always bothered me about diversity issues, that there is an expectation that when an issue is understood and two people come to agreement that they have to have the same reasons.
Let’s take opposition to the death penalty. Some might be against it because it is disproportionately applied to minorities or the poor, some might be opposed because of a moral reason and some might be against it because of the chance of an innocent person being executed. All three may or may not share the other reasons but they come to the same conclusion. Should they argue that the other reasons aren’t valid or that the others shouldn’t talk about their reasons as being definitive and instead just agree on the resulting opposition to the death penalty?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gender is a complex thing, more so than simple legal definition. In a modern civilised society it is a combination of law, biology, psychology, sociology and identity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only because people put too much value in the label of a particular gender. A butch lesbian who has no surgery is as much a female legally and as perceived by society as a male who goes through gender alteration surgery. The first doesn’t fit the gender the second is attempting to but is that gender by default. If the transgender person didn’t feel the need to fit the stereotype, then getting the surgery wouldn’t need to be accompanied by the gender change, the gender change is simply a need to conform with the perceived standards of that gender.
<b>I’ll reiterate how this is related to the topic: Homosexual marriages in the United States. </b>
In the US, many states have altered their state constitutions to bar same sex marriages. In law, in the US, gender and sex are generally the same. This means that the legal status of a person determines whether they are male or female. As I quoted above, my state requires surgery of the genitals for someone to change genders/sex legally. My state also added this wording to the state constitution:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->16: Marriage.
(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.
(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, this means that homosexuals are barred from getting a civil union that is equal to marriage, as long as they are both the same legal sex/gender, even if one otherwise acts and behaves as a stereotypical woman. The importance of this distinction is that when tied with the ability to change your sex legally. A starting same sex couple where one has completed the required surgery and changed their sex/gender legally can get married but one that doesn’t, even if the other behavior and self identification is the same, isn’t able to. If there was an ability to self identify as a particular gender without physical requirements then one person would simply need to self identify as the other gender to get married. A person who is against same sex marriage is most likely going to have the same basic biologically defined gender view as me, yet have a different view on whether the same couple should be married.
It reads much like this:
"Homosexuality is wrong, the bible tells me so. However, I am an American, and believe that all people should have equal treatment under the law, thus I do not oppose same sex marriage (they are still gonna burn in hell though)." (yes, analogies suck, and I don't think that snooggums thinks that they are an abomination or anything, I don't even necessarily think that he thinks they are wrong, simply that his arguments make it sound that way.)
It is agreeing with their rights, but still condemning them. I don't actually have a problem with this, in fact, I think that people like this are very good people, as it is harder to fight for some thing that you don't actually agree with. The problem is snooggums' insistence that he does support these choices, yet also insists that they are wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are attributing meaning and intent to words that isn't there. I'm atheist FYI, so if the bible comment was directed at me it is completely incorrect.
My words should be read more like this:
I had a friend in high school who was in the closet. Funny enough he was the son of a minister so he was very afraid of admitting this. He dated a girl and acted like a heterosexual and even identified himself that way. If the topic came up I would always say:
"No, you are homosexual." (I actually used the three letter filtered word)
I didn't mean this harshly, I was just pointing out his real nature. This never upset him, he just denied it.
When he finally came out in college there was no surprise. He had played the role of a straight person but underneath he was a homosexual, and his denial of that part by trying to fit into a heterosexual stereotype caused him much confusion and identity issues. When he came out he thought he would lose his friends but we all knew and we didn't care.
His self identity was based on what he thought people wanted him to be instead of what he was. Me saying "You are still a homosexual." is just like me saying "He is still a dude." it is an outside label on how I see the person, in the case of a transgender, I make the distinction on the genes. Where I make that distinction shouldn't matter to a person who puts more importance on self identifying.
This is fine by me, I can accept this, I don't agree with it (I agree with the bit about SSM), however I can accept it.
You bring up some other points however.
Should you flat out accept some one's argument who's end goal is the same as yours, even if you are coming from different locations? I don't necessarily think so. A faulty argument, or a decision based on different principles than your own can be nearly as bad for your cause as opposition.
Your death penalty one is interesting.
Person A believes that we must abolish the death penalty because it is fundamentally wrong to kill people.
Person B believes that we must have a moratorium on the death penalty because it is being unfairly applied.
Person B's argument wins out, and laws are passed restricting the death penalty until further investigation. Further investigation happens, laws are changed, etc etc, and now states have the death penalty again. Person A back at square one and Person B is satisfied.
In your case I would still continue to argue because I believe that it IS important to recognize transgendered people as what they are, and accept that they are what they believe.
You also appear to be missing a lot of information about transgendered people. You don't seem to acknowledge the differences between a transvestite, a butch/effeminate person, and a transgendered person. A transvestite fully identifies as their 'default' gender, they simply adopt the trappings of the other gender. An effeminate/butch person also identifies as their own gender, but have traits of the other. A transgendered person identifies as the opposite gender, regardless of trappings/behaviors. There of course can be degrees amongst all of these things, human begins are not simple devices. This also COMPLETELY ignores the question of sexuality, as any and all forms of sexuality could be practiced by any of these types of people. Again, we aren't simple things.
Your main goal seems to be that we should simply ignore everything about every one and treat every one exactly the same. Nice in concept, but really rather silly. There is nothing wrong with identifying as X/Y/Z, in fact, I think it is important. I think it is important for people to identify, be it with race, gender, creed, whatever. It helps us understand who we are, what we are, and what we are doing. Too me, the fact that I am a straight male is an important aspect of who I am. It gives me some definition of what I am and where I am in life. This doesn't mean that I am necessarily a stereotypical male (I am far from it), or that I accept much of what society tells me I should be (I don't). However, it is still important.
Ninja edit for your second post:
1) My bible comment was an analogy, as I said, and I acknowledge that it was faulty (all are), however I hoped that it would serve it's purpose, it obviously didn't.
2) "Where I make that distinction shouldn't matter to a person who puts more importance on self identifying."
It does. IT shouldn't, but it does. We care about what other people think of us. If you insisted on using the pronoun that some one doesn't identify with, despite know that they do not, you will likely end up with some one rather pissed off at you. We want to be accepted by society. Some of us are better at shrugging off other people's intolerance, ignorance, malice, or differing opinions, but it always has an effect. That is my point. You say that we should accept every one, yet you refuse to accept transgendered people for what they believe they are.
What if you had been wrong about your friend? He wasn't actually homosexual, yet you insisted he was, do you think that he would have really put up with it for ever? Or would he eventually have gotten annoyed enough to do something about it? It's is about accepting and respecting other people, and that includes their beliefs.
At the moment changing physiology is difficult and limited and imperfect, and changing mentality is difficult to control and poorly understood, so changing either is unlikely, however if you could then presumably it would be quite easy to go from physically and mentally male to physically and mentally female and I wouldn't see any reason to take prior states into account, just because someone started out in one state doesn't mean they can't change state over time.
There's tons to misinterpret, generally to do with the notion of physical/mental gender. While a transgendered person may be, say, mentally and genetically female before the operation, they'll still be physically male even after it (as in, someone with female born with no breasts or something). Well, somewhat, it's all shades of gray here.
<!--quoteo(post=1749428:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 27 2010, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not criticising anyone on the grounds of "ill will". What I am doing is criticising the attitude that leads to the <i>need to make that biological distinction</i>, particularly as it is rarely relevant to anyone except an individual's doctor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I'm talking about: just because one makes the distinction doesn't mean they extrapolate it to some moral ideals. It's easy to confuse one for another because our society is bigoted in general, even having red hair can lend you a great deal of grief... But that doesn't stop you from having red hair.
There's no need to get so worked up over this. I'm just trying to help.
<!--quoteo(post=1749430:date=Jan 27 2010, 05:36 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 05:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that in saying "And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude." and "yes, they are still homosexuals to me" is flat out denying that they are what they identify as.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not talking about mental or genetical identity, but physical one. Like I said, yes, it's ripe for misinterpretation: I was ready to wail on snoogum as well before reading through the follow-up posts. I believe he outright said he has no problem with it, and that he hates bigots as much as the next guy.
It's a misunderstanding. Nothing new to the Interwebs...
It's a misunderstanding. Nothing new to the Interwebs...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...
Bigotry gets your Horny?
The problem, is that he denies their identification, and insists that they are whatever they are genetically. I think you are actually putting words in his mouth that he doesn't agree with.
Okay, no, stop. You misinterpret everything the guy has to say on the matter. He said no such thing, nor anything in your post for that matter.
The few posts above basically say: "I was talking about genetical gender. I have no problem with people being of another gender or physique." Well, to the best of my understanding.
<!--quoteo(post=1749452:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:08 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bigotry gets your Horny?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the. I have no idea why I wrote that... How fitting for the topic though.
This is him stating that self identification doesn't matter to him, he will view a transgendered person as their biological gender no matter what. This is because he doesn't seem to place any value on societal definitions of gender. He also states that this shouldn't matter as these are his personal views, and people should be free to be transgendered and identify as they see fit, however he should also be free to ignore their self identification.
I agree that he has the right to view people as he sees fit, and he even has the right to refuse to acknowledge their self identification. However, I think he is wrong in doing so. In denying some one's self identification it denies who they are, and that their beliefs are important, some thing that I think is wrong.
If he will contradict me, and point out what he was trying to say I will accept it, or if you can show me where something he said contradicts me I will also accept it. However, I think I understand what he is saying (As it is all said fairly plainly).
Also, If bigotry makes your horny, you don't have to hide it. I think it is fairly obvious that all of us are rather accepting people.
No, I'm not saying they are wrong to self identify. Draco is reading correctly, a disagreement or pointing out that most people view a group a certain way does not automatically indicate a negative judgment against that group.
I'm also offended that you insinuated bigotry when I have indicated a methodology to my logic, an explanation of how I came to my conclusions and have made it clear that my personal opinions don't lead to any kind of discrimination against a particular group. My pointing out of the difference between a post-op transgender and a pre-op transgender marriage eligibility was there to illustrate that the opposite sex only requirements of marriage bills are actually pointless because sex/gender is a legal matter, not a self identification one. If it was a self identification issue it would be even less of an issue because gender would at that point be truly fluid. Instead of using male and female, self identifying as feminine or masculine would bypass the public's aversion to transgendered persons, without the confusion of reliance on biological terminology.
Pointing that out is not negative, it is simply noting something that is true. I've already said multiple times that gender should play no part in the requirement for two people to get married. That view even takes care of the people with genetically mixed genders.
Plus, my view doesn't deny them any ability to self identify. People self identify many things about themselves that everyone else disagrees with. Taking action on that difference is what what matters.
Still view their biological gender as their biological gender. Just in case it's still not clear enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1749457:date=Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 27 2010, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749457"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, If bigotry makes your horny, you don't have to hide it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For ######'s sake, don't say that.