Transgenderism

[ginnyfizz]

This seems to me to be getting a little heated and out of hand. I thought religious debate was actually banned, Vagrant0 - yet reading your last post, I sense a very definite pop being taken at people with religious beliefs. And as for this;-

 

"This is the driving force behind the "out and proud" attitude of some, and frankly the rest of us have been lucky that they aren't militant yet,"....then how do you explain the fact that militant agitation and the threat of legal action has forced several adoption societies run by churches in the UK to close, rather than compromise their beliefs? Are the "out and proud" movement NEVER guilty of intolerance and lack of understanding themselves?

[Aurielius]

"The solution is in open, intelligent, and thoughtful discussion of the issue and in not letting people get swept into the politics, beliefs, and biases that surround it. Until you can do that, any opinion you may express will be a subjective one."

 

I may have missed something Vagrant but I was under the impression that Crimsonedge11 was expressing a subjective point of view not a universal truth and as such it only needs to be true to him. Also he was quite clear that he did not extend his perspective to anyone else besides himself. Last time I checked we still allowed freedom of belief and speech whether we agree with it or not. Crimsonsedge from what I have read was simply being personally intellectually honest in order to establish a counter point to the main thrust of the prior posters.

I have avoided this thread prior to this, because first off it isn't near and dear to my core beliefs and secondly it's a minefield waiting to explode at the least misstep. So for the record I take no position whatsoever aside from my comments on intellectual honesty, freedom of speech and belief..

Edited March 7, 2011 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

I agree with you sir. I myself take no position on this, save that this debate is getting one-sided, that freedom of speech appears to not be allowed in it, and that it has great potential to get ugly.

[Vagrant0]

This seems to me to be getting a little heated and out of hand. I thought religious debate was actually banned, Vagrant0 - yet reading your last post, I sense a very definite pop being taken at people with religious beliefs. And as for this;-

 

"This is the driving force behind the "out and proud" attitude of some, and frankly the rest of us have been lucky that they aren't militant yet,"....then how do you explain the fact that militant agitation and the threat of legal action has forced several adoption societies run by churches in the UK to close, rather than compromise their beliefs? Are the "out and proud" movement NEVER guilty of intolerance and lack of understanding themselves?

The mention about religion is not about the value of specific beliefs but to merely point out that there is something which 80% of the world agrees on to a basic level, but who still adopt a policy of hatred because of those parts that they can't agree on. If we can't accept others on the grounds of something common, so mutually understandable, how can we accept others on things which are not but just as important to how one identifies themselves both personally and socially?

 

I'll keep my own comments about religion based adoption agencies to myself, but legal action isn't exactly militant behavior. If an agency, of any kind, is discriminating solely on the basis of sexuality, don't you think people have the right to file legal action or have their case reviewed by an impartial source? It isn't like these people decided to just sue for the sake of suing, or just for money. No, militant actions are usually illegal ones that involve destruction of property, death threats, and riots, and as far as I know, there has not been anything organized as such. That is not to say that militant action is any more acceptable or that it is even a good idea, all things considered, just that usually with an oppressed group, violence is common.

 

I may have missed something Vagrant but I was under the impression that Crimsonedge11 was expressing a subjective point of view not a universal truth and as such it only needs to be true to him.

What you missed was his claim that his view was objective. I was merely pointing out that his view is not only subjective, but is based around bad information. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone tries to come out as being fair and impartial when it clearly isn't the case, shouldn't one try to correct them before there is a misunderstanding.

 

As far as things being one sided, that really isn't the case unless you hold the belief that any sort of mutual agreement among debaters suddenly means a one-sided debate.

[phoneyLogic]

Of cause this whole topic reflects personel opinions and is not that heavy determined by religion or politics nowadays.

But if someone has other sexual favours like the normal (which are in fact existing) and hides them by living a "normal" life, this very often leads to at least one deceived person.

 

It's just "normal" and not "hateful" to have personel opinions and to not to tollerate everything possible.

This does not mean that every transgendered person is bad. It just means that individuals draw a line, somwhere. And attemps to say "This line is wrong. You are hateful." is not very helpful.

 

And I don't belive someone who claims, they wouldn't care the gender case.

[DeadMansFist849]

If you think everyone who's happy with the bits they've got (pardon the oversimplification, but it is the only language that those spoonfed by Faux News or the Daily Mail understand) is like you--offended by the thought that someone else would feel the need to change their body, then you're very mistaken, fortunately for those of us who don't fit into the 1950s definition of normal. Intolerance and saying certain groups are bad when they've done nothing to you personally is hateful and irrational--and even if one member of said group has upset you, that's still no justification for spouting the nonsensical tale that they're all horrible. :)

 

It is, as I said, unfortunately considered more normal to hate than to accept people--if you don't hate at least one minority, apparently you're an airheaded hippy. Which is ridiculous, but then, what should we expect from the media's moral guardians? :rolleyes:

[Aurielius]

I may have missed something Vagrant but I was under the impression that Crimsonedge11 was expressing a subjective point of view not a universal truth and as such it only needs to be true to him.

What you missed was his claim that his view was objective. I was merely pointing out that his view is not only subjective, but is based around bad information. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone tries to come out as being fair and impartial when it clearly isn't the case, shouldn't one try to correct them before there is a misunderstanding.

As far as things being one sided, that really isn't the case unless you hold the belief that any sort of mutual agreement among debaters suddenly means a one-sided debate.

 

These are the salient posts of crimsonedge11's, would you please point out the line where he claims to be objective? I see personal opinion but no statement of universal truths, in fact there are no plural pronouns. The closest thing to a generalization is a comment about American society currently not being that open to the concept which given that Transgendgers are not yet mainstream seems a fair comment of fact.

As for a one sided debate I wholeheartedly agree that no debate should be one sided, which then would apply to this one as well.

 

I'm surprised there could be any kind of legitimate discussion about something like this, without it turning into a full throttle flame thread.

"But now that I'm here I guess I will throw in my 2 cents.

I don't really care what other people do its their business, but I will be honest and say, that I do look at people who practice this kinda of behavior, very strangely, and would never associate with them personally, or hang around people like this.

And if someone who appeared to be a female made a move on me and I found out they weren't? I would see that as disrespectful and it would make me very angry."

 

"Has nothing to do with hate, its about who I choose to associate with personally. And I only associate with people of a certain character and moral values. Look at it this way, transgender is a choice, someone isn't born that way, and it is fair to hold someone accountable for the choices they make. But I still support their right to make that choice, but I reserve the right to judge them for making that choice. I think that people who make this choice shouldn't expect to be received by others as normal people, because they are not."

 

"There is a choice, because people can't be like that without an artificial medical procedure. People that are transgender are obviously homosexual, and I do believe people are born that way, but to get an artificial medical procedure to alter your body into something else. That is different.

So you are saying life is difficult for them because they made a choice to get a sex change? Pardon me for not really caring that much, because it is a choice, and they have to learn to deal with the consequences of their choices like anyone else. I have made choices in my life plenty of times and had a negative result, and I had to learn to deal with it. That is the best solution I can give, is don't feel like you are entitled to being accepted by everyone because of a choice you made to alter your body. That just isn't the way the world works.

I am not a person who is prone to political correctness, so I will give an honest opinion of what I really think.Anyway, I have put my opinion out there, and will just leave it at that, before this turns really ugly."

 

 

"My opinion is valid, because getting a medical operation to alter your body is a CHOICE, meaning you don't have to do it. And I already suggested that people that are homosexual, are likely born that way, but that in itself is much different than altering your body with a medical procedure into something that is not natural

And exactly what way am I being hateful? I never said I hated anyone, I just drew a line in the sand as to what I though was acceptable lifestyles and behavior for people I personally associate with in real life. And I never said all transgender people are bad people. Its just that I associate with people who think and act like me in real life.

And Vagrant, you need to look at the bigger picture here. You know as well as I do that society as a whole, in most of the US at least is not ready to accept this kind of behavior as normal. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but not now. And the harder people try to push it, the more defiant the reaction people will have to it. Maybe not open defiance, because people are too damn afraid to be labeled a bigot, but they will do it in the ballot box."

Edited March 7, 2011 by Aurielius

[phoneyLogic]

BB2, claiming that all people are feeling comfortable in their body is just unfair.

This is not the case.

Almost everyone is unhappy with, even if it doesn't have sth to do with the gender. There are more reasons to feel extremely uncomfortable. Do you suggest we all should do sth agaisnt it by usingh plastic surgery?

 

And please, show me that person who wants to fit into the 1950 morality.

[DeadMansFist849]

No, I'm saying that you think everyone who's cisgender (i.e. born with the "right" body) is repulsed by transpeople, and that you are wrong. I could name quite a few cisgender people who are at the very least not repulsed by transmen (female-to-male transsexuals) and who would probably not mind a transwoman either, of those who are attracted to females. I'm not repulsed either, by the way.

 

I was not bringing real mental disorders, such as body dysmorphic disorder, body integrity disorder or clinical lycanthropy into the discussion. Those are quite separate from being transgender.

 

For those who don't know the terms, a quick summary:

 

Body dysmorphic disorder =irrational belief or delusion that you are ugly

Body integrity disorder =desire to be an amputee

Clinical lycanthropy =believing yourself to be an animal or werewolf.

 

Have some links, if you will...these, I believe should suffice to support my position that it's not a mental illness or a choice.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

http://tucsoncitizen.com/greymatters/2010/01/07/is-transgenderism-a-mental-illness/

http://www.transgender.org/gidr/

http://genderblogs.com/being-transgender-is-not-a-choice/

[phoneyLogic]

No, I'm saying that you think everyone who's cisgender (i.e. born with the "right" body) is repulsed by transpeople, and that you are wrong. I could name quite a few cisgender people who are at the very least not repulsed by transmen (female-to-male transsexuals) and who would probably not mind a transwoman either, of those who are attracted to females. I'm not repulsed either, by the way.

I'm not saying that everyone would be repulsed nor that there are no folks who wouldn't.

I just mean that there is a point for everyone, were the treatment "everyone is equal" ends. This is in most cases given somewhere, for everyone and everything. Be it in bed time stories or in serious relationships. There people just are intolerant because it is their personal life.

 

 

I was not bringing real mental disorders, such as body dysmorphic disorder, body integrity disorder or clinical lycanthropy into the discussion. Those are quite separate from being transgender.

Yes, we are talking about 100% healthy young man or women who feel themselfes in a wrong gender.

So if it's not a mental disorder, like you say, is it a body disorder to be born in a completely healthy male or female body?

I just don't get your logic in here.

Edited March 7, 2011 by tortured Tomato