The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
Atomic12C said:
AshVX220 said:
CC, your contributions to this thread are enlightening to say the least and I think the thread is far better with your presence in it.
I would also agree with that.(despite there being some disagreement between our positions)
Anyone who dares bring up an opposing viewpoint is shouted down in a manner I wouldn’t expect from a hormonal teenager.
Just because he may or may not be a danger to vulnerable people doesn’t mean his kindered spirits won’t be, as I don’t expect any straight Caucasian males won’t be perverts or rapists.
The fact is I understand there are people who will take advantage and thus being against promoting the risks does not mean I’m against all straight Caucasian males!
It is funny how you only picked up on the rapey example I gave however CC. My other point about sports “women” you conveniently ignored...
Nothing to do with the fact from the recent MMA Fight being right in front of you?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
My other point about sports “women” you conveniently ignored...
Nothing to do with the fact from the recent MMA Fight being right in front of you?
I have no opinion or comment to make on it, because it is not a matter for me to decide. It is down to the sport's Governing Body to decide. Nothing to do with the fact from the recent MMA Fight being right in front of you?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
(* - "two spirit" is a concept of the Native Americans. For a people considered as 'savages' by the conquering white men, they were actually very enlightened)
Interesting quality/value dynamics:An Indian and an anthropologist were walking around the reservation when the anthropologist sees a dog. 'What sort of dog is that?' he asked. The Indian thought for a while and said 'that's a good dog'.
Interesting how the qualities portrayed in film of the taciturn, stoic, lone 'cowboy' were so similar to the Indian in effect.
I'm curious CC, one thing I've never seen at first hand is the 'hatred' of trans people, it's a little like the sexism debate (which I'll steer clear of) in that as soon as you divide people into 'a
holes' and 'normal people' a lot of the divisions evaporate and situations look far clearer without tarring people with the same brush (the antithesis of 'equality') to the detriment of your cause; how much is out there in terms of being either ridiculed, bullied, 'hated' etc in actuality? I think it's natural that people will perhaps look twice [genetics, evolutionary trait] but what is the sort of level of 'abusive' behaviour you encounter, if any?Edited by andy_s on Thursday 6th December 10:52
bulldong said:
Neither a doctor or a researcher, hence my question, and based on the dictionary definitions of what a condition or illness is.
The problem is that, well, the treatment is medical though isn't it (hormones and surgery), and there are psychological issues (or at least higher rates of mental illness) associated with it. It isn't clear to me whether these come from being repressed, or whether these issues cause a trans inclination. So does the declassification mean that it is automatically treated as a sexual health condition and the mental state of the patient is, by default, ignored?
Help me understand it, rather than berating and patronising me.
I'm sorry if you felt my first reply to you was patronising or berating. I asked whether it was gut feeling or whether it was an informed opinion based on medical expertise to provoke you into some critical thinking about your own opinions. The problem is that, well, the treatment is medical though isn't it (hormones and surgery), and there are psychological issues (or at least higher rates of mental illness) associated with it. It isn't clear to me whether these come from being repressed, or whether these issues cause a trans inclination. So does the declassification mean that it is automatically treated as a sexual health condition and the mental state of the patient is, by default, ignored?
Help me understand it, rather than berating and patronising me.
You said you found the WHO policy troubling, and if you consequentially said you were a medical professional, I would have enquired to find out why, because that would have been interesting to me.
If it was a gut feeling, as it appears to be, then that's entirely natural. It's arguable on of the reasons as to how human beings survived to evolve to where we are today, and my question was intended to provoke critical thought on it.
I'm not trans; and I'm not a medical expert. When I think back, there's not a moment I've felt anything other than male. I would hazard a guess that most of the population share my experience on that. I'm absolutely and inherently certain about that aspect of my identity, that it seems strange to me that when trans people express their gender identity; people immediately disbelieve or question them. Things like that, people know themselves.
The mental issues you raise are, I think, caused by the dissonance between what is observed in the world and the internal sense of self. Feeling alone and different from everyone else places great mental stress on a brain that evolved with needs for social contact and inclusion.
andy_s said:
I'm curious CC, one thing I've never seen at first hand is the 'hatred' of trans people, it's a little like the sexism debate (which I'll steer clear of) in that as soon as you divide people into 'aholes' and 'normal people' a lot of the divisions evaporate and situations look far clearer without tarring people with the same brush (the antithesis of 'equality'); how much is out there in terms of being either ridiculed, bullied, 'hated' etc in actuality? I think it's natural that people will perhaps look twice [genetics, evolutionary trait] but what is the sort of level of 'abusive' behaviour you encounter, if any?
Well, it's kinda like how men see less evidence of sexism than women, how white people see less evidence of racism than non-whites, how straight people will see less evidence of homphobia than gay people, and how white males will see less evidence of Male White Privilege. If something doesn't affect you, then you're less likely to see it. holes' and 'normal people' a lot of the divisions evaporate and situations look far clearer without tarring people with the same brush (the antithesis of 'equality'); how much is out there in terms of being either ridiculed, bullied, 'hated' etc in actuality? I think it's natural that people will perhaps look twice [genetics, evolutionary trait] but what is the sort of level of 'abusive' behaviour you encounter, if any?But, yes, on the whole there are a lot of decent people around who are tolerant and accepting. Or, at worst, don't care. I rather like your division of 'a
holes' and 'normal people' 
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Well, it's kinda like how men see less evidence of sexism than women, how white people see less evidence of racism than non-whites, how straight people will see less evidence of homphobia than gay people, and how white males will see less evidence of Male White Privilege. If something doesn't affect you, then you're less likely to see it.
This is why i was asking CC, it was a genuine enquiry, not something beyond my reach as a concept Clockwork Cupcake said:
(* - "two spirit" is a concept of the Native Americans. For a people considered as 'savages' by the conquering white men, they were actually very enlightened)
I think there is some "noble savage" revisionism going on with that concept, to be honest, but certainly some tribes were accepting of people who chose the opposite gender role to their sex.andy_s said:
This is why i was asking CC, it was a genuine enquiry, not something beyond my reach as a concept
Oh, and I took it as such. I apologise if my reply suggested otherwise. I just meant that things that don't affect us are less obvious. It's like when you decide to buy a certain type of car, and suddenly the roads seem full of them.
For example, I don't see much racism in the workplace. Yet I know, intellectually, that it must happen and I probably don't notice it.
And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
esxste said:
Atomic12C]lockwork Cupcake said:
So, really, this is complete bullst.
[\quote=Clockwork Cupcake]
Its not though is it.
Its a reasonable consideration and concern.
When for example you see on youtube or even on some TV shows (in america mostly), that some trans-people very readily turn back in to their male form when it comes to conflict and aggression.
Separation of male and female for the use of toilets and changing rooms has very valid and long standing reasons.
Claiming to identify as the other should not be a civil liberty that can trump those reasons.
Got examples, becuase I kind of suspect that you've watched an episode of RuPauls Drag race and you think that drag queens are trans... t. [\quote=Clockwork Cupcake]
Its not though is it.
Its a reasonable consideration and concern.
When for example you see on youtube or even on some TV shows (in america mostly), that some trans-people very readily turn back in to their male form when it comes to conflict and aggression.
Separation of male and female for the use of toilets and changing rooms has very valid and long standing reasons.
Claiming to identify as the other should not be a civil liberty that can trump those reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/ka...
Clockwork Cupcake said:
And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
On this point, I would disagree.LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
For much of society the term 'gender' means an alternative method of classification of 'sex' (male or female). There is no law that has restricted the use of the word 'gender' to be something different.
As I mentioned in a previous reply.... if one is to term gender as something that can be 'fluid', and as such it can mean one identifies as a man, a woman, both or neither.....or even as a traffic cone!.....then its simply a statement that "gender" is meaningless and has no definition. So the logical conclusion is that one can not be "mis-gendered" as it does not define anything.
Atomic12C said:
On this point, I would disagree.
LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
Apart from the fact that wilfully and deliberately mis-gendering someone, and denying their gender identity, is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term. LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
And as such, I'm calling it out as transphobia. Because it is.
The fact that you think it isn't doesn't alter the definition of the term.
It also rather illustrates my point.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
... is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term.
I think this is where society may not agree.Because society as a whole may not accept your definition; rather its only those with a belief that 'gender' is fluid and that there is an acceptance that one can identify with any particular aspect of it, would accept it.
If there is a judge in the UK that has pinned down the restrictions of use for the term 'gender' within society....and it follows your claim...then I'll happily stand to be corrected.
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
Atomic12C said:
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
This comes back to an earlier part of the thread, where we concluded that if someone were to misgender someone as a genuine mistake, then no offence need be taken. But if someone does it maliciously, deliberately, and with the intent of offending, then it is fine to be offended by it. I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Apart from the fact that wilfully and deliberately mis-gendering someone, and denying their gender identity, is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term.
And as such, I'm calling it out as transphobia. Because it is.
The fact that you think it isn't doesn't alter the definition of the term.
It also rather illustrates my point.
I don't think it's transphobia.And as such, I'm calling it out as transphobia. Because it is.
The fact that you think it isn't doesn't alter the definition of the term.
It also rather illustrates my point.
You are a man biologically, even if you do not identify as one, and I don't think it's wrong to accept that people may be calling you he / male.
I don't think it's being done in a horrible manner, or perhaps even consciously.
If it was being done consistently in a horrible manner , then that is a different discussion. I do not see that being done there.
No-one in this thread has ever been transphobic towards you or anyone.
esxste said:
bulldong said:
Neither a doctor or a researcher, hence my question, and based on the dictionary definitions of what a condition or illness is.
The problem is that, well, the treatment is medical though isn't it (hormones and surgery), and there are psychological issues (or at least higher rates of mental illness) associated with it. It isn't clear to me whether these come from being repressed, or whether these issues cause a trans inclination. So does the declassification mean that it is automatically treated as a sexual health condition and the mental state of the patient is, by default, ignored?
Help me understand it, rather than berating and patronising me.
I'm sorry if you felt my first reply to you was patronising or berating. I asked whether it was gut feeling or whether it was an informed opinion based on medical expertise to provoke you into some critical thinking about your own opinions. The problem is that, well, the treatment is medical though isn't it (hormones and surgery), and there are psychological issues (or at least higher rates of mental illness) associated with it. It isn't clear to me whether these come from being repressed, or whether these issues cause a trans inclination. So does the declassification mean that it is automatically treated as a sexual health condition and the mental state of the patient is, by default, ignored?
Help me understand it, rather than berating and patronising me.
You said you found the WHO policy troubling, and if you consequentially said you were a medical professional, I would have enquired to find out why, because that would have been interesting to me.
If it was a gut feeling, as it appears to be, then that's entirely natural. It's arguable on of the reasons as to how human beings survived to evolve to where we are today, and my question was intended to provoke critical thought on it.
I'm not trans; and I'm not a medical expert. When I think back, there's not a moment I've felt anything other than male. I would hazard a guess that most of the population share my experience on that. I'm absolutely and inherently certain about that aspect of my identity, that it seems strange to me that when trans people express their gender identity; people immediately disbelieve or question them. Things like that, people know themselves.
The mental issues you raise are, I think, caused by the dissonance between what is observed in the world and the internal sense of self. Feeling alone and different from everyone else places great mental stress on a brain that evolved with needs for social contact and inclusion.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Atomic12C said:
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
This comes back to an earlier part of the thread, where we concluded that if someone were to misgender someone as a genuine mistake, then no offence need be taken. But if someone does it maliciously, deliberately, and with the intent of offending, then it is fine to be offended by it. I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff