To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[jayem]

If that's all there was to it, I doubt anybody would have a problem with it.

AFAIK, that’s all there is to it. I was a health care provider for 40+ years. For the last 18 years I worked in occupational medicine. I was the medical director for a large Fortune 500 company’s employee health clinic. We had one employee undergoing male-to-female transition. She was in the hormonal phase of treatment, and gave herself estrogen injections on a regular schedule. She wanted some privacy to do this while at work. We always had a vacant exam room. So sure, she could come to medical on her lunch break, close the door, pull the curtain, give herself the shot, and then go back to work. That’s all she wanted. Why do you think anyone undergoing transition wants or expects anything from you or anyone else—other than to be left alone?

 

[Ken-1122]

AFAIK, that’s all there is to it. I was a health care provider for 40+ years. For the last 18 years I worked in occupational medicine. I was the medical director for a large Fortune 500 company’s employee health clinic. We had one employee undergoing male-to-female transition. She was in the hormonal phase of treatment, and gave herself estrogen injections on a regular schedule. She wanted some privacy to do this while at work. We always had a vacant exam room. So sure, she could come to medical on her lunch break, close the door, pull the curtain, give herself the shot, and then go back to work. That’s all she wanted. Why do you think anyone undergoing transition wants or expects anything from you or anyone else—other than to be left alone?

What did I say that gave you the impression I have a problem with trans people getting treatment?

 

[didactics]

I'm going to refer to a person as they (notice, I said "they") present. They're going to have to at least meet me halfway. As I said, most persons who have transitioned want to be referred to as they present.

But see, why don’t you take that to its conclusion? If you think it’s not enough to call a man a woman because he still looks like a man, then why do you think it’s enough for a man to call himself a woman to have sex reassignment surgery? Let me guess, is it because of consent? Having consent is a good thing but it’s not enough; the decisions we make need to be rational— affirming the gender binary. The belief that someone can be tapped in the wrong body assumes that gender is not fixed. We live in a sin cursed world with diseases and so forth, but creation is not so fallen that a sense of order does not exist.



Now legitimate reasons why people use hormone replacement therapy for example range but can be due to physical disorders. But I’m challenging you on this because I say it’s never okay to go along and affirm someone’s gender as defined in terms that are different then sex, even if it is a psychological issue. Gender reassignment surgery to treat trans people I consider to be body mutilation [period].

 

[Kylie]

I'm going to refer to a person as they (notice, I said "they") present. They're going to have to at least meet me halfway. As I said, most persons who have transitioned want to be referred to as they present.

Seems like you are saying that they need to do extra in order for you to treat them they way they want. If they ask you to address them with, say, feminine pronouns, it's rather rude to turn around and say, "Sorry, I would, but I don't think you look feminine enough."

 

[Kylie]

What do you mean by “your sense of self”? Other than my sex organs, there is nothing about me that tells me I am a man. I am me, and because of my sex organs I’ve concluded I am a man. If I had female sex organs but felt as I do now, I would conclude I was a woman who is attracted to women and who prefer behaving in a way most men choose to behave, but I would still identify as a woman.

My sense of self is my inherent understanding of who I am.

Are you suggesting that if you woke up one day and magically had lost a penis and grown a vagina that you'd be, "I guess I'm a woman now"?

My sense of self tells me that I'm a woman in just the same way that I know I'm primarily attracted to men. I know that it's likely to be different for different people, but I think you need to understand that some people have this internal sense of self that is separate to the shape of their genitals. If that's not how it is for you, that's fine, but it's rather rude to say, "This is how it is for me, so I'm going to treat everyone as though it's like that for them too."

Of course it’s real to the person thinking about it! What I meant by not real is that it is a figment of their imagination; something that only exists in their heads.

When you say something is "just a figment of their imagination" and "Only exists in their head" it sure sounds like you're saying it's not real. Or, at least, less real than something else.

 

[didactics]

Are you suggesting that if you woke up one day and magically had lost a penis and grown a vagina that you'd be, "I guess I'm a woman now"?

If that were to happen he needs to be brought on the Maury show to have the dna results read aloud.

 

[RDKirk]

Seems like you are saying that they need to do extra in order for you to treat them they way they want. If they ask you to address them with, say, feminine pronouns, it's rather rude to turn around and say, "Sorry, I would, but I don't think you look feminine enough."

As has been noted, the only pronouns I'd use to address someone I was talking directly to would be "you" and "y'all."

 

[jayem]

What did I say that gave you the impression I have a problem with trans people getting treatment?

If I misunderstood your position, then I apologize. It now sounds like we fundamentally agree. Gender dysphoria is a medical issue--not a moral one. In addition to medical treatment, persons afflicted with this condition deserve compassion. Not derision.

 

[didactics]

As has been noted, the only pronouns I'd use to address someone I was talking directly to would be "you" and "y'all."

You see though, these gender theorists don’t really care if you don’t use the preferred pronouns in the chance that said person hears you talking about them (indirectly that is). They just want you to comply. They’re not looking for an open dialog. You see what they really prefer is that you don’t disagree. That’s why I challenge you on this. It’s either all or nothing. That’s why I say it just makes sense to outright reject it. There is nothing simple about it. There is nothing simple about they/them/their as non-binary pronouns either.

 

[Ken-1122]

My sense of self is my inherent understanding of who I am.

Are you suggesting that if you woke up one day and magically had lost a penis and grown a vagina that you'd be, "I guess I'm a woman now"?

My sense of self tells me that I'm a woman in just the same way that I know I'm primarily attracted to men. I know that it's likely to be different for different people, but I think you need to understand that some people have this internal sense of self that is separate to the shape of their genitals. If that's not how it is for you, that's fine, but it's rather rude to say, "This is how it is for me, so I'm going to treat everyone as though it's like that for them too."

And everybody is not like you so it would be just as rude for you to take that attitude yourself.

When you say something is "just a figment of their imagination" and "Only exists in their head" it sure sounds like you're saying it's not real. Or, at least, less real than something else.

Less real than what else? Something objective?

 

[Ken-1122]

If I misunderstood your position, then I apologize. It now sounds like we fundamentally agree. Gender dysphoria is a medical issue--not a moral one. In addition to medical treatment, persons afflicted with this condition deserve compassion. Not derision.

The point I was making had nothing to do with them getting medical treatment, I was just making the point that when I address someone, I address them according to their biology, not their gender. This has nothing to do with them getting medical treatments.

 

[RDKirk]

You see though, these gender theorists don’t really care if you don’t use the preferred pronouns in the chance that said person hears you talking about them (indirectly that is). They just want you to comply. They’re not looking for an open dialog. You see what they really prefer is that you don’t disagree. That’s why I challenge you on this. It’s either all or nothing. That’s why I say it just makes sense to outright reject it. There is nothing simple about it. There is nothing simple about they/them/their as non-binary pronouns either.

Except I'm not that concerned about what they think. I'm going to go as far as I believe is reasonable.

If someone has gone to enough trouble to present enough like a particular gender to require close study to determine otherwise, I'll refer to them that way. That's as far as I think is reasonable.

And I will continue to make a distinction between transsexuals and people born to a gender. I do not consider trans-women as interchangeable in all ways (or even most ways) with cisgender women.

 

[Kylie]

And everybody is not like you so it would be just as rude for you to take that attitude yourself.

I'm not asking you to be like me. I'm asking you to understand that other people have a different view about what makes them a man or a woman. You seem to be holding the position that you could know better than the person what gender they are.

Less real than what else? Something objective?

You seem to be suggesting that mental illness such as depression is less real than other illnesses. The brain is just another organ, after all. Why should an illness in the brain be less real than an illness in the liver or the kidney?

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not asking you to be like me. I'm asking you to understand that other people have a different view about what makes them a man or a woman. You seem to be holding the position that you could know better than the person what gender they are.

No; I’m saying since they’ve redefined the definition of gender to something that has nothing to do with biological sex, I don’t address it anymore. If you are under the impression that I think I know better than someone else knows what is going on inside their heads, you have misunderstood me.

You seem to be suggesting that mental illness such as depression is less real than other illnesses. The brain is just another organ, after all. Why should an illness in the brain be less real than an illness in the liver or the kidney?

I said Gender as they are redefining it is something that exists in your head, but biology is objective. I was comparing gender to biology, and that biology is what I prefer to use; I was not comparing mental illness to physical illness.

 

[Kylie]

No; I’m saying since they’ve redefined the definition of gender to something that has nothing to do with biological sex, I don’t address it anymore. If you are under the impression that I think I know better than someone else knows what is going on inside their heads, you have misunderstood me.

I said Gender as they are redefining it is something that exists in your head, but biology is objective. I was comparing gender to biology, and that biology is what I prefer to use; I was not comparing mental illness to physical illness.

The simple fact is that gender really does have nothing to do with biological sex.

Why do you prefer using a person's biology to decide what pronouns to use for them? Pronouns are a reflection of a person's gender identity, not their biology. It makes about as much sense as me using your eye colour to decide whether to use he/him or she/her pronouns. "You have blue eyes, so I'm going to use feminine pronouns for you."

 

[Moral Orel]

the fact that they are human means I know a lot about their biology! Just because I don't know 100% does not mean I know nothing about their biology

No, but you know nothing about the factors you listed as defining gender. The only facts about their biology that are pertinent to this discussion.

Wrong. How they present sociologically is usually based on their biology. This isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it.

It's not complicated, no. You refer to the presentation that they have learned through society; you do not refer to their biology. You already treat gender pronouns in a non scientific way. That's the point. Stop pretending your pronoun usage has anything to do with science.

 

[Ken-1122]

The simple fact is that gender really does have nothing to do with biological sex.

Why do you prefer using a person's biology to decide what pronouns to use for them? Pronouns are a reflection of a person's gender identity, not their biology. It makes about as much sense as me using your eye colour to decide whether to use he/him or she/her pronouns. "You have blue eyes, so I'm going to use feminine pronouns for you."

My dog is female, and I refer to my dog as she/her. Does my dog have a gender identity now?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, but you know nothing about the factors you listed as defining gender. The only facts about their biology that are pertinent to this discussion.

No; I do know something about the factors I mentioned; I may not know know the exact details about their biology, but If I'm talking to a guy, and on average guys have an average testosterone level of somewhere between 900-1200, or an average estrogen level of somewhere between 15-30, am I expected to know their exact numbers before addressing them? Of course not! I look at them, and based on how they look I make assumptions about their biology; it's as simple as that. If I get it wrong, I apologize and make the correction. But when I address them, this assumption is based on their biology, NOT their gender (as redefined by you)

It's not complicated, no. You refer to the presentation that they have learned through society; you do not refer to their biology. You already treat gender pronouns in a non scientific way. That's the point. Stop pretending your pronoun usage has anything to do with science.

Again; I make assumptions about their biology based on how they present themselves. I never claimed this process of assumption was science, I only said biology is science where as gender is not, so I choose to make my assumptions about their biology.

 

[PloverWing]

Let me guess, is it because of consent? Having consent is a good thing but it’s not enough; the decisions we make need to be rational— affirming the gender binary. The belief that someone can be tapped in the wrong body assumes that gender is not fixed.

These sentences introduce some topics that are somewhat different from the question of how to relate to transgender people.

1. Consent: Consent is normally discussed in the context of sexual activity, not gender identity. Having your partner's consent is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for having sex with them in a way that is morally acceptable. I assume the reference to consent here is just an accidental oops, but I wanted to clarify.

2. Gender binary: This is more interesting, and I'd be interested in exploring it with you, if you'd like to discuss it. As a preliminary comment, I'll note that it's quite possible to talk about transgender people completely in terms of a gender binary -- namely, to say that everyone has a personality that's either masculine or feminine, and most of the time that aligns with their male or female body, but sometime's it's misaligned. This way of describing it still speaks in the language of a gender binary.

By contrast, people who talk about "rejecting the gender binary" are talking about the idea that people's personalities, interests, and aptitudes can range from the stereotypically masculine to the stereotypically feminine, with lots of gradations in between and lots of mixing-and-matching (e.g., a person can like to knit and also like to fix cars). The idea is that, while there may be some level of statistical correlation between psychological femininity and biological femaleness (or between masculinity and maleness), a person's body isn't anything like a perfect 100% predictor of their personality, and that it's good to acknowledge and celebrate people's wide varieties of personalities, interests, and aptitudes, instead of making them conform to one of two boxes, "masculine" or "feminine".

You say you want to be "affirming the gender binary", so I assume you disagree with at least some of what's in the preceding paragraph. What do you mean when you say that you want to affirm the gender binary?

 

[TLK Valentine]

These sentences introduce some topics that are somewhat different from the question of how to relate to transgender people.

1. Consent: Consent is normally discussed in the context of sexual activity, not gender identity. Having your partner's consent is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for having sex with them in a way that is morally acceptable. I assume the reference to consent here is just an accidental oops, but I wanted to clarify.

Agreed -- I like the way Christine Emba put it in her book: "Rethinking Sex: A Provocation." "Consent should be the floor, not the ceiling."

2. Gender binary: This is more interesting, and I'd be interested in exploring it with you, if you'd like to discuss it. As a preliminary comment, I'll note that it's quite possible to talk about transgender people completely in terms of a gender binary -- namely, to say that everyone has a personality that's either masculine or feminine, and most of the time that aligns with their male or female body, but sometime's it's misaligned. This way of describing it still speaks in the language of a gender binary.

Here I have to disagree somewhat, because you seem to be thinking of "personality" as a single monolithic thing, and not a collection of attitudes and behaviors... each of which are perceived as "masculine" or "feminine" by society.

By contrast, people who talk about "rejecting the gender binary" are talking about the idea that people's personalities, interests, and aptitudes can range from the stereotypically masculine to the stereotypically feminine, with lots of gradations in between and lots of mixing-and-matching (e.g., a person can like to knit and also like to fix cars).

Here we go... this is more in line with what I'm talking about -- certain behaviors and activities are, as you say, stereotypical of "masculine" and "feminine." But of course, those stereotypes can change as society changes.

The idea is that, while there may be some level of statistical correlation between psychological femininity and biological femaleness (or between masculinity and maleness), a person's body isn't anything like a perfect 100% predictor of their personality, and that it's good to acknowledge and celebrate people's wide varieties of personalities, interests, and aptitudes, instead of making them conform to one of two boxes, "masculine" or "feminine".

Agreed -- but while you talk about the biological and the psychological, I think you're leaving out another crucial influence: sociological. Our society is constantly bombarding us with messages (one could even call it "propaganda") regarding what it means to be "masculine" or "feminine" -- how else did those stereotypes come to be in the first place?

Our parents, our peers, our schools, our religions, our celebrities -- every book, movie, TV show, song, fairy tale, etc... reinforce those stereotypes.

"Boys don't cry,"
"Man up!"
"Good girls don't ______,"
"Daddy's little princess..."

Our bodies and brains are influenced by our personal experiences, social sphere, and wider culture... and in turn, go on to influence them.

You say you want to be "affirming the gender binary", so I assume you disagree with at least some of what's in the preceding paragraph. What do you mean when you say that you want to affirm the gender binary?

I'm curious about that myself.