Transgender passports

[Shakermaker]

Ari said:

Because there are far more pressing real issues to deal with and becasue once you open this Pandora's Box of made up issues, there's no putting the lid back on.

Unfortunately, as this thread shows, we appear to be already past that point and those that simply want a pragmatic common sense response are shouted down in a hail of sarcasm and claims that we're no better than racists and homophobes.

Welcome to the 21st century...

But it isn't a made up issue. It is an issue that doesn't affect you, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. And I don't see that making this decision is going to stop the progress of scientists working to cure cancer, the military and political intervention to try and prevent terrorist attacks and get rid of ISIS, nor will it stop the police from trying to track down and catch paedos.

[Europa1]

Aphex said:

the Canadian bill C-16 should tell you why this is dangerous

You may have to throw us a bone here...

[WinstonWolf]

p2c said:

Seems to me that the contributors in favour (or indifference) of X passports have been giving well thought out and civil discussion and challenges, The only allegations of phobia have been virtue signalling allegations made by those against X passports towards themselves with no basis of the allegations or position having actually been taken against them. Calling out your viewpoints with reasoned debate is not making such allegation, its called the debate.

What is an X passport and why do those who don't think they're the correct sex need a specialised language?

[Shakermaker]

WinstonWolf said:

p2c said:

Seems to me that the contributors in favour (or indifference) of X passports have been giving well thought out and civil discussion and challenges, The only allegations of phobia have been virtue signalling allegations made by those against X passports towards themselves with no basis of the allegations or position having actually been taken against them. Calling out your viewpoints with reasoned debate is not making such allegation, its called the debate.

What is an X passport and why do those who don't think they're the correct sex need a specialised language?

X is the suggested choice for those who don't wish to use M or F, its what the whole thread has been about.

[bitchstewie]

Europa1 said:

Aphex said:

the Canadian bill C-16 should tell you why this is dangerous

You may have to throw us a bone here...

Looks like an amendment to Canadian law where gender identity can't be used as grounds for discrimination.

[Ari]

gregs656 said:

Common sense tells me the world is flat. Common sense is next to 'being a realist' as a complete fallacy used not to progress our knowledge and culture but prohibit it by maintaining the status quo (and indeed making it the authority).

The world is round.

There are only two sexes, male and female.

The fact that there are flat earthers no more makes the world flat than people wanting a third sex option on passports makes a third sex (or no sex at all) real.

These are not complex issues, honestly they're not.

[JagLover]

Ari said:

The world is round.

There are only two sexes, male and female.

The fact that there are flat earthers no more makes the world flat than people wanting a third sex option on passports makes a third sex (or no sex at all) real.

These are not complex issues, honestly they're not.

This

In fact those proclaiming the earth was flat, or indeed that the sun revolved around the earth were ignoring reality in favor of an ideological dogma....much like those pretending there are no genders in fact.

[2xChevrons]

Ari said:

There are only two sexes, male and female

Ruh roh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

And I'm not going to keep banging my head against the sex =/= gender wall much longer, but the this issue about the passports is about gender, not sex and the two terms are not interchangeable. To me that seems 'common sense'.

[JagLover]

bhstewie said:

Looks like an amendment to Canadian law where gender identity can't be used as grounds for discrimination.

Torontosun said:

Importantly, Bill C-16 does not provide explicit protections for the transgendered. Instead, it creates protections for “gender identity” and “gender expression”: vague concepts with no precise legal definitions.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/17/the-big-problem-with-canadas-transgender-rights-bill

[jjlynn27]

Ari said:

Your sarcasm suggests you're more interested in trying to 'tell off' people who disagree with you (which does seem to be something of a theme with people who support this kind of thing), but in case you're just a little inept at basic communication and really are interested in discussing it, I'll try and explain the differences in your example.

Not really, I was mocking your antiquated views. It wasn't comparison for you to find the difference, it was showing you what you'd be like if you were born 50 years earlier. How do you not get that?

Ari said:

We gave them gays rights and look where we are now!! 50 years ago, them gays were illegal!!!

This is called a 'real problem'. It's real because if you are gay, being persecuted for it is clearly very unfair and it has a genuine negative effect on the life of a gay person. So it is absolutely right that negativity toward homosexuals was (and still is) addressed.

Who are you to decide what's a real problem?

Ari said:

Putting 'no blacks, no Irish, no dogs' sign in your windows

Again, penalising someone for their ethnicity or skin tone is a real problem. It's utterly unfair, completely unjust and affects lives, ability relate to people, ability to earn money, lots of very important things. It should be stamped out.

Again, it's not up to you to decide.

Ari said:

Now, deciding that you want to opt out of being either male or female and you'd like the world to stop and accommodate that - that's not a real problem. It's not unfair because you are one or the other (everyone is either male or female, you can even chose to be the opposite of what you actually are if you like). And it doesn't affect your life because even if you do choose to identify as 'helicopter' or 'Jedi' or whatever you've invented, you can still tick whichever most closely identifies with whatever you're pretending to be this week and get on with your life.

No one is going to refuse you board and lodging because of it, no one is going to put you in prison for it, no one is going to refuse you a job because of it.

We just don't need this level of pandering to these ideas - it's simply not required.

Again, that, completely misplaced, delusion of grandeur is rather adorable. When you are 5. Do you actually understand how stupid it looks when you type 'We just don't need....'.

Now, your original post was rather idiotic. Just stop for a second and read this, to yourself, out loud

Ari said:

' Because it will never stop - every extra inch given results in another three asked for. '.

Seriously, stop and think about it. What inch? Who's going to ask another three, and from whom?

Ari said:

Because inevitably it does impact us eventually, when we're sat in another diversity lecture at work or left wondering whether we should hold the door open for a woman or whether it's okay to say her dress looks nice

I'm not at all surprised that you are 'left wondering' how to talk to women. Not surprised at all.

[gregs656]

Ari said:

The world is round.

There are only two sexes, male and female.

The fact that there are flat earthers no more makes the world flat than people wanting a third sex option on passports makes a third sex (or no sex at all) real.

These are not complex issues, honestly they're not.

It is, but that was not proved by applying 'common sense' - not your bag?

There are more than two sexes, but this thread is about gender - so what's your point?

Of course my point was nothing to do with flat earthers, but that is the level of critical thinking you display when you appeal to common sense.

Proving the earth was round was not not complex. I doubt many people would have a clue where to start, certainly the body of work from those who are recognised for doing it (collectively including Pythagoras and Aristotle) has resonated for 2000 years. These were not trivial people or subjects.

I think the nature of identity (inc gender identity) is extremely complex and not well understood.

[JagLover]

Shakermaker said:

But it isn't a made up issue. It is an issue that doesn't affect you, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. And I don't see that making this decision is going to stop the progress of scientists working to cure cancer, the military and political intervention to try and prevent terrorist attacks and get rid of ISIS, nor will it stop the police from trying to track down and catch paedos.

The way I see it there are three distinct groups

group 1
Genuinely born with both female and male sexual traits-which I believe is 0.05% of the population

group 2
Convinced that they have born in the wrong sex and undergo hormone treatment and surgery to change what they believe is their gender, and legally that is indeed the case .

group 3
who want to construct some order of society that isn't based upon any natural basis and believe that gender is a construct of society.

Now groups 1 and 2 are already covered under the law and can change their gender and have it reflected on their passport. So what we are actually discussing here is group 3 who apparently believe that a girl liking boxing or a boy not liking DIY makes them a different gender as opposed to girl who likes boxing and a boy not liking DIY.

what makes this ideology dangerous is there are a number of social programmes that we need to keep certain basic realities in mind like gender. As one example it is beneficial to disadvantaged boys to have a positive male role model, abandon gender and you abandon common sense like that.

[2xChevrons]

JagLover said:

Now groups 1 and 2 are already covered under the law and can change their gender and have it reflected on their passport. So what we are actually discussing here is group 3 who apparently believe that a girl liking boxing or a boy not liking DIY makes them a different gender as opposed to girl who likes boxing and a boy not liking DIY.

Your groups 1 and 2 could all overlap with group 3 on a Venn diagram.

The thing is this isn't an issue that you can really define and prescribe because it's entirely about people's own experiences and how they identify with themselves and their society. To run with your example:

Some girls will find they like boxing (a traditionally masculine sport). They are quite happy being 'a girl that likes boxing' but may wish that they could go without the jokes and jabs or feeling that they've given up a part of their feminine identity by doing so.

Some girls who like boxing may find that they also like many other things usually associated with masculine gender identity. They may realise they feel much more comfortable slotting into the masculine gender role in society. They are, to some extent or another, transgender (which is not the same as being transexual).

Some girls who like boxing may decide that they don't feel happy slotting into either of the gender roles society has defined for them. They may want to forgoe a gendered identity altogether, or they may wish to present different genders in different situations or they may reject the entire notion of gender altogether on a personal level. It is this group that the 'X' passport entries are aimed at, and why shouldn't it be an option?

There are shades of grey inbetween all these three examples and they apply just as well to the boy who doesn't like DIY (or who likes wearing make-up, to take a positive rather than a negative example).

[Terminator X]

I'm looking forward to ticking the middle box. After a while and if enough people do so the Govt will no longer know how many male or females have a passport which presumably might not be a "good thing".

Ditto for the Census which rumour suggests may go the same way.

TX.

[paranoid airbag]

gregs656 said:

Ari said:

Because there are far more pressing real issues to deal with and becasue once you open this Pandora's Box of made up issues, there's no putting the lid back on.

Unfortunately, as this thread shows, we appear to be already past that point and those that simply want a pragmatic common sense response are shouted down in a hail of sarcasm and claims that we're no better than racists and homophobes.

Welcome to the 21st century...

Common sense tells me the world is flat. Common sense is next to 'being a realist' as a complete fallacy used not to progress our knowledge and culture but prohibit it by maintaining the status quo (and indeed making it the authority).

It is exactly because of using an argument like 'common sense' that people can draw analogies to racists and homophobes; the arguments against change in both of those circumstances would have been exactly the same as the one you have just used.

It is truly insightful that you think the attitudes portrayed by either side is anything to do with living in C21. Progress Vs Common sense is all of history. I suppose you would prefer Galileo didn't challenge the common sense conception of the day?

Well said. I'd like to add, in the 19th and first half of the 20th century... common sense in most of the west was that black folk just weren't as smart as white, and things like rights would only confuse 'em. Same for women. Common sense in the 1950s, if not later, was that gays would infect your children and shouldn't be allowed.

Saying "it's common sense" in a sociological or political argument is probably a tacit admission you've got nothing.

That said, just because someone feels strongly about something doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it important. But if it's a case of putting 'X' as an option on a passport, well... I've seen no reason not to give someone who is strongly in favour of that the benefit of the doubt. It makes them happy, I don't understand or care why, don't need to. That's a better reason to side with someone than knee-jerk conservatism (Conservatism? I forget which).

[Randy Winkman]

Pesty said:

Randy Winkman said:

Is it just men that get annoyed about this stuff? I wonder if some women do too? My guess is that a few do, but not so many.

Other way around I'd say.

Go ask some women that now have to share toilets and changing rooms.

Which women have to do that?

[popeyewhite]

2xChevrons said:

Some girls who like boxing may find that they also like many other things usually associated with masculine gender identity. They may realise they feel much more comfortable slotting into the masculine gender role in society. They are, to some extent or another, transgender (which is not the same as being transexual).

[popeyewhite]

Randy Winkman] said:

Is it just men that get annoyed about this stuff? I wonder if some women do too?

Most women i know (a lot of whom box and follow other male past tines but wouldn't hesitate to mark themselves down fully as X) get annoyed by it . I think they lead busy lives with jobs, children etc and see this as self-absorbed rubbish that the current trend is to give in to. They don't waste their time thinking about it much because they're wise enough to know that something else just as superficial will be along soon.

[Ari]

paranoid airbag said:

Saying "it's common sense" in a sociological or political argument is probably a tacit admission you've got nothing.

How about biological?

That's the bottom line. There are two sexes - pick one, doesn't even need to be the one that you are.

If people think that their lives will some how be better ascribing to one of a now range of 'genders' like they're supporting a football team, crack on, no harm done.

Just change the tick box on passports etc from 'gender' to 'sex' and everyone's happy.

[Ari]

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not at all surprised that you are 'left wondering' how to talk to women. Not surprised at all.

And again with the insults. How very predictable.