Another judge-ey thing

[DZoolander]

--- N/m - delete.

 

[DZoolander]

lol - yep - I started going on a rant but then changed my mind

 

[snoochface]

For what it's worth, I read it before the delete and feel much the same.

 

[DZoolander]

Yeah, I don't think that I was really off base. Just decided not to open that can of worms.

 

[Dave-W]

I started going on a rant but then

You know that your rants get raves.

 

[JRichard68]

Okay, you gotta spill it now.

 

[DZoolander]

lol - ok.

My rant was about trans people. I've got a friend that I pretty much grew up with. We met well over 35 years ago, and we were really good friends in Jr. High and a good percent of HS. Well, they came out as trans to me about a year ago or so (I was actually the first non-trans person they told). Part of why I deleted the original post was because since I was the first person told, I feel that there's a certain obligation on my part to be extra respectful of the situation... But - it's irking me.

To help put things into context, let's look at gay people. I've got no issues with gay people. So far as I can tell, all they pretty much want is to be left alone, be allowed to have state sanctioned legal marriages (and the rights that comes with), not be preached to and basically live their lives without being discriminated against. That's what they're looking for, and I'm perfectly happy to give that to them. Heck, I'll argue in their favor, because I think it's right that they be afforded those things.

But a year of watching my friend's facebook feed - that's not what trans people want. They don't want to be left alone. They do suffer a lot of discrimination, yes, but they're not looking to be accepted and left alone the way gay people are. They're not just looking for acceptance and things like bathroom rights. If that's what it was, I'd have no problems. No, they want to change how YOU look at your own sexual preferences.

For example, today on the friend's feed there was this huge argument about how trans people are under no obligation to tell their dating partners that they are trans. The logic of this goes along the lines of "If he says he likes women, and he doesn't want to date a trans person, then that means that he doesn't think the trans is truly a woman. That's transphobia, and a form of violence toward the trans person. It ought be treated as such."

Really...? So if I was single and I said I didn't want to date someone because I'm not interested in penis, that's a form of violence against you? The sophistry that they engage in is just utterly mindboggling - and it all revolves around the idea of whether or not they're accepted by everyone as REAL whatever they see themselves as.

I mean - it really is all kind of Orwellian and thought-police-y...and that's me as a social liberal saying that. lol The way they argue things even puts me into a stance of being in conflict with them.

Today in that discussion they were having about "we don't need to reveal intimate details of what's under our skirts any more than any other woman does, because if he says he's attracted to women, that means he ought be attracted to me" - I made this argument.

"If you are saying that there's a difference between sex and gender, then maybe it's time to start talking about a difference between sexual preference and gender preference. As a heterosexual male, my sexual preference trumps my gender preference, because I'm not interested in the phallus. If a 'woman' can have a phallus, then by these definitions, I have no gender preference. I only have a sexual preference."

Everyone stopped talking after I said that. Don't think it won anyone over though.

What do you think?

 

[snoochface]

I have a real problem with the new definition of violence that these issues have brought. It basically victimizes the entire world. If someone thinks I'm a bigot for that, are they committing violence against me for having an opinion on grammar and word choice? Linguistic violence maybe?

But yeah I think your point was well made in your final comment. Someone else's right to their gender identity pretty much ends another person's right to know what they are getting when the pants come off? How is that okay?

 

[DZoolander]

The problem is, it goes beyond just accepting them. To me, at least, accepting would be like "Hey, Susie, come on over tonight for this dinner party" and not making any issue of them being trans. If that was it, I'd have no problems with being accepting.

But, that's not it. They want "me" (if I were single) to be cool with discovering my date having a penis, and not see that as being gay or anything, because a woman can have a penis too. lol That's a pretty radical request on their part for me, IMHO!

And if I don't - then I'm guilty of perpetrating violence upon them?

 

[Dave-W]

And if I don't - then I'm guilty of perpetrating violence upon them?

That is just wrong on so many levels.

By the same token, they are perpetrating violence on you by making you change your views of gender preferences.

 

[akmom]

Discrimination is shunning someone from an association they should be entitled to. No one is entitled to a relationship with any particular person, nor is any one obligated to be attracted to any particular person. You literally get one spouse out of 7 billion people, so you can be as “discriminating” as you like. Race, sex, religion… they’re all fair considerations in a RELATIONSHIP. That’s outside the scope of social progress. And it fails to meet some very common and legitimate expectations in a relationship: sexual compatibility, reproductive capability…

I have to wonder, if a “trans” person is so intent on their identity as a different gender, then why would it be so important to them to have a “cis” partner (a stupid term, btw, hijacked from chemistry), to the extent of using deception? Maybe find a trans partner and enjoy a mutually pretentious relationship.

...Is DZoolander the same as EZoolander??

 

[DZoolander]

Yep decided to make a change!

 

[DZoolander]

The more I think about that group, the less I like them, quite honestly. They're quite the pernicious, invasive and aggressive little group.

They constitute far less than one percent of the population, yet they've managed to pretty much hijack the "male" and "female" pronouns and redefine them.

They've created a new term (CIS) to describe 99.9% of the population, and of course, the rest of the population is defined relative to them. Really? I need a new term to describe "Male who is cool with the fact he has male equipment"?

They're attempting to redefine what sexual orientation means (like, in their view a man ought be able to be attracted to someone else with a penis yet not have it be considered homosexual).

They've totally hijacked the "LGBT" thing... If I was a gay person, I'd be upset that now it's like "LGBTQDSQPOC" blah blah - with a new set of initials put in to account for seemingly every variation of how someone might want to approach gender/etc. Now, gay is pretty much lost in the mix of a whole bunch of gender confusion...lol

They're like a social cancer.

 

[JRichard68]

...Is DZoolander the same as EZoolander??

Yep decided to make a change!

I was going to say that "you just don't spring that on a person all willy-nilly", but then I've always had one or two names that I've gone by (ImaginaryDay), but have never used one that had any portion of my name. So...

 

[JRichard68]

I was reading a news article yesterday about a trans person (identifying as male) who has fought for his child to be "unidentified" on legal and birth documents. The child is referred to as "they" rather than "he" or "she". It will then be up to "them" to choose a gender identity for "themselves" as opposed to socially mandated... you see where this is going. but the lawyer representing this guy made a mistake - she made a statement about "this child's sex, their gender, is not something that can so easily be... blah blah". But what I caught is the fact that the LGBTQ community are the ones who have separated sex and gender. A person may be born with certain genitalia that identify their 'sex' characteristics, but not their gender. So I was left to wonder about her statement. Are sex and gender the same, or different? Can't have it both ways. Or is there another change in the language that we now have to adopt.

 

[DZoolander]

That's the reason why I, in the original post, made the suggestion to the trans people that "If you're going to say there's a difference between gender and sex, then perhaps it's a good idea to start talking about the difference between sexual orientation and gender orientation." - because they are trying to have it both ways.

The whole crux of the "a man ought be able to have a sexual relationship with someone else with a penis without it being gay" argument that they're trying to get people to accept is that women can have penises. When someone then says "I am attracted to women", in their eyes that ought be "women" as they're defining it (gender - not sexual equipment).

If that's how they're defining things, then it's fair to say that I have no gender orientation. I only have a sexual orientation. Being in possession of penis, or having ever been in possession of a penis, is an immediately disqualifying trait.

 

[tall73]

l


For example, today on the friend's feed there was this huge argument about how trans people are under no obligation to tell their dating partners that they are trans. The logic of this goes along the lines of "If he says he likes women, and he doesn't want to date a trans person, then that means that he doesn't think the trans is truly a woman. That's transphobia, and a form of violence toward the trans person. It ought be treated as such."

The difficulty is that if someone is physically a man but believes they should be a woman and then pursues usually a years-long process in pursuit of that goal at the end they believe they are in fact a woman. They find it problematic that not everyone agrees.

And down the road some come to the conclusion that they are not, after all their efforts, a woman but a man on hormones and with surgically altered physical features. That would be hard to accept. If someone really thinks they are a woman they would think men would be attracted to them. But they find that many men are not because they don't view them as a woman at all, but an altered man.

Thinking on the issue has changed over time, as it used to be considered a mental disorder, and transition discouraged, and now it is usually considered dysphoria and transition often encouraged by pediatricians, etc.

To my thinking if a person's physical characteristics do not match one's perception then it is the perception that should be challenged. Or if there is a brain-chemistry reason (I am by no means a scientist, so I wouldn't know, but some have suggested that if the areas of the brain which differ among genders forms at a different time than other physical sex characteristics there could then be a physical cause of dysphoria) then why not try to alter the brain chemistry rather than the physical form? You cannot truly change a woman's body into a man's or a man's into a woman's. So why not try to change the brain issue rather than what can only be a partial attempt at best of changing the physical?

Now perhaps it is not possible to change the brain chemistry, or the damage would be greater overall. Either way it is not an enviable position.

However, some dysphoria resolves over time. Therefore I am not sure it would be physical, at least in all cases.

At the very least anyone contemplating transition should (and in the case of adults probably would) understand that this change cannot change everything about them. They won't be in all respects similar to people born of that gender. And many will not view them as such.

 

[tall73]

The larger issue to me is the emphasis on early transition, or puberty blockers at an age before the child may understand all the implications.

This could lead to some people beginning transition before they can make informed decisions on long-term outcomes.

This also has implications across society. There was discussion about this during Ontarios recent Bill 89. It revised some provisions of an old bill dealing with care of children to include gender identity and expression.

There is some debate as to how this would be interpreted or used. Certainly when placing a child in foster care it would be a factor, etc.

But it could also come into play in removing children from their own households if the situation was perceived to be abusive, or at least that was the fear of some.

Children and Youth Services Minister Michael Coteau was quoted as saying:
"I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently."
QP briefing (property of Toronto Star Newspapers).

Minister reassures Christian families about child protection bill – QP Briefing

Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall but some vidoes on youtube have more of the context. I cannot post some of those videos due to language. But those so inclined I suppose can look it up.

There are already thorny issues in all areas of beliefs, etc. when removing children from a home. For instance Couteau also notes that a child who wants to believe in Jesus but is being denied that by his family could be considered abuse.

So it is always a tough decision. But including the gender identity and expression criteria paves the way for POSSIBLE use of this when handling foster care, removal from the home, etc.

 

[snoochface]

It shocks me that parents are willing to help their kids transition long before they can even reasonably understand what the implications of such a move are. If you wouldn't let your kid get a tattoo at 7 years old because it's permanent and they might regret it later, then don't let them start on hormone therapy and decide they are changing genders at 7 years old for the same reasons.

 

[Darkhorse]

The more I think about that group, the less I like them, quite honestly. They're quite the pernicious, invasive and aggressive little group.

They're like a social cancer.

Your problem is...you still have too much sanity and common sense left. That won't do! You must get rid of it and accept the Brave New World!